|
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. 1098. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:39:23 AM CalGal
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.
I'm trying. That why I spend hours reading the whole damn history to see what had happened in the past, wrote a response to Irv, and objected to your characterization that the issue wasn't open. 1099. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:40:15 AM I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy. 1100. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:48:24 AM CalGal
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.
This is total bullshit. It's the same bullshit put forth by those who critize campaign finance critics for taking contributions. It's the same bullshit that critics of libertarians use when they point out that libertarians use certain services that they object to.
If you read the transparency book, you will see that the proposed world works when transparency is fully implemented. To use a common example, should women be opposed to transparency if they are being stalked? A short answer is that transparency will help then, if fully implemented. But a partial implementation, where the stalker can locate the woman, but can hide himself, is obviously the worst of all worlds.
Someone suggested that transparency can become the standard incrementally, by each individual adopting it. I disagree (but I'm open to alternative arguments.) In a fully transparent Mote, Cazart would be reticent to harass me, because I would know where s/he lives. If I post my name and address, but Cazart does not, the information asymmetry may work to my detriment. 1101. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:50:57 AM CalGal
me I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
you So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy.
Christ, please pay attention. I said I thought you would know of my position. You said you didn't. I explained why I thought you might have known. That's the "so what".
|
