|
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.
1078. CalGal - 2/26/2000 4:13:52 PM Personally, I'm all in favor of inviting everyone to post on Policies. I wish to hell more people would. Instead, we had at least four people post saying "Christ, people, get over it and quit talking about it."
Which is four more people than posted in favor of transparency (after you and Jay) and two more people than posted in favor of Seguine's proposal (one of whom backed off when they understood it). All of these amounts being far fewer than the amount of people who posted against transparency and Seguine's proposal and in favor of the current rules (whether Irv's or the current RoE wording). Especially when you figure that the people who said "knock this shit off" are essentially expressing support for the current rules (even if they don't give a damn).
In other words, Angel, if you're going to count heads, please realize that the majority of those who commented expressed support for the rules that were developed. The majority also seemed to express no resentment about the rules or the consultation--many of whom mentioned that they said the same thing the first time round.
So it seems as if those who said, "Look. The current RoE is indeed something that the majority of the Mote buys off on" isn't all that far from the truth, is it?
I support your right to request changes. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy.
Also, please remember that it was wabbit--not me--who decided that the original discussion was sufficiently representative to justify action. Given your complete faith in her, expressed lo! these many days, I'm surprised you are then criticizing her decision. 1079. CalGal - 2/26/2000 4:23:42 PM Incidentally, it is my impression that this discussion is (hallelujah!) winding down. It is not my call to make, nor am I seeking to stop or curtail discussion. I am just making an observation, since I am responsible for UI and content.
If I understand what happened, the only issue on the table is Irv's changes to RoE wording.
I have to say that I prefer the anticipatory warnings, Irv. Mainly because it tells potential trouble makers that we've thought through this shit, and we won't feel kindly about those who try to push the edges.
I also don't think we should spell out penalties--"Rules" are just that. I see no advantage to limiting ourselves. The fact is that Wabbit can do anything she deems appropriate, so why should we leave ourselves open to people bitching because the exact letter of the consequence mentioned in the RoE isn't followed?
Finally, I don't care for the split between the first two rules and the last two. I prefer the format of the current RoE--spell out all four rules, then expand on the description of each. It is more structured.
We can point people to the FAQ, once it's completed (and would people please read the damn thing? Otherwise, I see another monster in the making.), to give a more detailed description of ourselves, our approach, etc.
I can change the wording to use Irv's more formal approach, and I can put that together to see if that works for anyone interested in reviewing it. But this assumes that the people who preferred Irv's version did so because of the more formal wording. If what was preferred was instead the spelling out of the consequences, then I'd like to debate that a bit more. I would like to see what the advantages are to spelling out and therefore limiting Wabbit's options. 1080. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 4:31:59 PM Silence doesn't mean assent. That went out with Nixon. If I go outside and shout 'Hey, the world is flat' and no one contradicts me does that mean the world agrees? No? What if I say it in a coffeeshop or a bar or a grocery? No? And I hate to point this out, but you can't weasel out of 'everyone' meaning 'everyone' by saying that you included everyone else who didn't post. Not if you subsequently define those people as a priori assenting to the RoE. Jesus, that is such horseshit. Oh, it's horseshit? You want to retract that, or do you want me to go back to the posts -- again -- and prove you wrong? The posts are there, it's your call. Some people asked for more participation in the discussion; Wabbit put the thread out front because she said she wanted to be sure everyone was accomodated. Go on, prove me wrong. the people who said "knock this shit off" are essentially expressing support for the current rules (even if they don't give a damn).
In other words, Angel, if you're going to count heads, please realize that the majority of those who commented expressed support for the rules that were developed. Oh, whatever, now the people who said that the discussion was pointless are supporting the old rules? Most of them as I recall argued against the discussion the first time around and didn't express interest in it either way -- at least one of them has subsequently expressed support for Irv's rewording. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy. Classic. You don't have a point, so you resort to distorting mine. I've said so many times that there was no conspiracy that to me the quoted statement is either proof that you're selectively illiterate or else being duplicitous. I'll ask you again to go back and back up your inference. I'll do that knowing fully well that you won't, because you can't and you know it. But do go ahead. Prove me wrong. 1081. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 4:42:09 PM Thank you, though, for proving my point. Not only are you representing all the Motiers who never saw the discussion or never commented upon it as supporting your draft of the rules, but now you're claiming that everyone who bitched about the discussions -- either the old one or this one -- supports the old RoE as well. That's a better proof that you're claiming more support than is due for the old RoE than I could have constructed in three days. You're attempting to speak for a lot more people than you ought to. So far more people have spoken for the revision than have spoken against it, and more than one who has spoken against it has said that they could live with it. If the discussion is winding down (I expect that a few more people may comment on the rules) then that's fine. Oh, and no one is limiting Wabbit's options. The new wording makes it clear that the Moderator has the option to act on RoE violations. 1082. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/26/2000 5:49:32 PM Cal:
The only penalty spelled out in my version of the rules is that posts which reveal private information or make serious real-life threats will be deleted. Everything else is up to the thread hosts or the Moderator.
I don't think there's any doubt that such posts will be deleted, is there? Other than that, our options are open, as they should be.
I have a number of comments on the FAQ, but I haven't had a time to write them down yet. I think we definitely need an FAQ, and your effort is an excellent start. I hope others offer their input as well. 1083. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 6:03:48 PM I'm definitely in support of a FAQ. I think it should have a tone along the lines of the revised RoE -- I'm really against them having a clubhouse feel to them. They should be crisp and professional and precise. And concise, which pretty much rules me out as an author. We have to keep in mind that the FAQ are probably going to shape some peoples' perceptions of what the Mote is all about, so we should probably pick someone as close to center as possible to draft them anyway and radical centrists like myself don't apply. To me, I'd like to see something like
a) a short history of the Mote
b) who's who (the short list of staff)
c) what to do with tech problems
d) who to mail with questions
e) expectations for conduct
f) generally not anything which is going to really color a newbie's perceptions one way or the other except for on issues of civility. There's a lot, a LOT of things a newbie eventually learns when joining a forum, but few except for hard-data questions that you can answer in a FAQ. 1084. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 6:05:16 PM I'll revise: I don't think it matters who actually authors the FAQ (it would probably be best as a group project, actually) so long as the tone and statements come in close to center. 1085. CalGal - 2/26/2000 11:34:00 PM Irv,
It may be just a gut feeling, but I worry about saying even that much in the RoE. It's not a huge objection, it just concerns me.
On the FAQ, and this also works for the objection you had to the warning in the RoE, Irv:
I think it saves a lot of time to give a full answer. I remember recently, when Niner deleted the posts, there was a big hullabaloo in the Inferno. Some people were outraged--could a host just do that sort of thing? Answer came back, loud and clear, from a varied group of members: Yes. A host can just do that. We don't hold any truck with tolerating nonsense; we trust our hosts.
Now, I am sure that all members don't agree (Caz and Stone come to mind), and all of us might complain individually about our own posts being deleted, but I would consider that answer to be representative of the Mote's attitude towards thread hosts.
So if we put together a formal FAQ that doesn't address this, I think we're being deliberately disingenuous. I think that answer is a key aspect to understanding how things work here. It should color newbie's perception.
So if the tone is a problem, it can be made more formal. But I do think it's foolish to avoid spelling out our approach to deletions, abuse, etc. Frankly, if someone squawks about their free speech rights, I'd just as soon that anyone be able to link in the FAQ saying, "Perhaps you missed this?"
|
