|
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?" 1086. CalGal - 2/26/2000 11:35:43 PM Some people were outraged--could a host just do that sort of thing?
I should say that it was new folks (from TT) who were outraged. 1087. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:45:45 PM CalGal
Honestly. Statements like this just astound me.
??? Meaning what? That you don't believe what I said? Or that you are astounded someone would speak the truth?
This thread commenced on the 18th of September. Wabbit's pronouncement, if that is when the RoE were adopted, came on the 23rd.
Have you forgotten that there was a rule not to mention of the goings on of this thread in the general threads? Hardly the open process you are now characterizing. (BTW, lest you mistakenly think I am opposed to keeping policy discussion in a separate place, I'm not. I'm objecting to the spin that the discussion was open to all.) 1088. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:48:29 PM Angel-Five
I generally support the idea of a FAQ as outlined in Message # 1083. I haven't thought through the pluses and minuses of each individual item, so I may be persuaded that some shouldn't be in there, but I believe there was general agreement quite some time ago for a FAQ 1089. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:52:30 PM CalGal
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).
If you are counting heads, I'm in favor of transparency. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. (And I take it silence=assent doesn't apply to proposals you disagree with?) 1090. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:16:33 AM CalGal
I can't find any statement asserting that "everyone" expressed support.
A-5 has already identified it. How much clearer could it be? 1091. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:27:15 AM CalGal
If I understand what happened, the only issue on the table is Irv's changes to RoE wording.
Hardly. I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes. Irv thinks it is clear, but I cannot find a post, much less several, that back up his explication. I can find several referring to alternative rules. I'm not opposed to Irv's summary, but I'd like to see some evidence that his version, rather than others, is the model. Plus, as I asked, I would like to see elaboration of the ambiguity in his summary, as i asked before.
We've had a discussion about transparency. If we adopt the "silence=assent" model, then the overwhelming majority are in favor, and it should be adopted. Of course, I don't accept that model, so I'm not seriously proposing this. However, I don't agree that the issue is closed.
There is interest in a FAQ.
There's thee issues OTTOMH. I bet I could find more (including thread host duties and thread host selection criteria, if I looked.) 1092. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:28:06 AM Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance.
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency. Really (and as a separate issue), anyone who is for transparency and doesn't use their real name now doesn't warrant much consideration. Put up or shut up, if you think it's so important.
The thread commenced on the 18th, but there was a good week of discussion before that in both Censorship and New Features and Suggestions. Alistair deleted the Censorship thread, and we continued discussion in Features--much of that was deleted as well. Nonetheless, everyone was made aware that the thread existed, and anyone who wanted to could post on the issue.
I have answered the bit about "everyone" already.
1093. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:32:52 AM BTW, I don't think the silence=assent is a priori wrong. If a group wants to affirmatively adopt it as a rule, it can work. Some committees work this way. In some rare occasions (person and SO) it can be a tacit agreement, but this usually requires people who are very close. The second doesn't apply here—the first did't happen.
Oh, and as A-5 points out, political spinmeisters will make this claim. But that doesn't make it so. 1094. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:34:21 AM CalGal
Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance.
Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't. 1095. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:34:33 AM There is interest in a FAQ.
I wrote a FAQ, and posted it in New Features and Suggestions a while ago, as well as in this thread. I seem to recall you saying that you'd read it and didn't like it but wouldn't post why.
I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes.
You may have identified it, but I've seen no indication that it's moved past that point. As I said to Angel, go get a movement going. Or put a proposal on the table and get a discussion going. I was only referencing discussions that had moved to a point for action.
FWIW, I agree with Irv--the people who are interested will post here. A good percentage of members will read up and post once or twice if they are specifically invited to--which we should always do (and have, despite your impression to the contrary). Requiring that people vote, or forcing them to be subject to these discussions, will not be popular.
1096. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:37:02 AM CalGal
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency.
Well, we had a book thread on the subject. I started with a strong preference for privacy rules, but Jay, and the book he suggested made a strong case for tranparency. Over time, I became convinced that it was more workable than I orginally thought. I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads. 1097. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:39:20 AM Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't.
We also didn't push for a move to transparency. We did indeed make people aware that the RoE was up for discussion. Anyone who was interested knew where the discussion was.
In fact, there was very little change to the RoE--none of the specific rules were changed. The definition of public vs. private was added, as well as a more open definition of abuse and threats. So it's not like there was a huge change--which is entirely different from a proposal to move to transparency. But nonetheless, anyone who wanted to protest or push for a change could have done so.
|
