|
1103. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:01:48 AM God, this gives me a headache.
Dusty:
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.
What ambiguity? The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ. Someone brings up a topic or makes a proposal, we discuss it (or ignore it), and wabbit makes a decision. That's the method.
And silence does NOT mean assent. Otherwise we would have adopted both A5 and Seguine's proposals. Silence can mean many things: disinterest, ignorance, disapproval, assent, etc.
CalGal:
I agree with getting more specific about what thread hosts can do in the FAQ.
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.
I didn't touch the definitions of abuse or threats, so how could they be more open? 1104. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:19:39 AM IrvingSnodgrass
What ambiguity?
You said: The Moderator then makes a decision based upon that consensus.
This could be interpreted as saying that the Moderator must make a decision consistent with the consensus. Otherwise, what is the point of the last four words? I propose a period after decision.
The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ.
You keep saying this, but I read the 1000+ posts in this thread, and I did't see it. I'm not asking for someone to find a post to contradict me. If we put it in the FAQ then it will be clear. 1105. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:22:00 AM Irv,
No, I wasn't referring to your draft at all! I was referring to the original discussion, back in September, when the RoE was changed in the way described.
I'm sorry. This gives me a headache, too, and I'm not clear even when migraine free.
And silence does NOT mean assent.
As I thought I made clear, I was referring to what occurs once we have informed people that a change is on the table, and what will happen when a consensus is reached. In other words, you give people the knowledge that a discussion is taking place, you give them the information that action might occur at the end of the discussion. At that point, if people don't become involved, then IMO they are accepting the decision that is made.
This is actually why I encourage people like Angel and Dusty to get people involved in their proposals--because unless there is a big push for change, we are more likely to maintain the status quo. But if lots of people chime in with support, it suggests that there is a reason to consider change.
1106. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:41:05 AM OK, Dusty. You can change that sentence to read "The Moderator then makes a decision taking that consensus into consideration" on your copy. But be careful to get the white-out on the right place on your screen.
CalGal:
No problem. I'm still a novice at interpreting CalGalese. 1107. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:58:58 AM This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it.
The first mention of a Policy thread was 1017, in New Features and Suggestions, made by Pelle. Wabbit then created it and directed people there at post 1100.
At that time, there was a Censorship thread that had just been deleted, and a chunk of posts in Suggestions had been deleted as well. (I can't remember where right now, and didn't feel like looking back). Anyone who wondered what happened to the discussion could have read in New Features what happened. If you are arguing that someone wondered, didn't ask, and was then deprived of their right to participate, I'm just going to reserve the right to be skeptical.
BTW, the discussion went on for two or three days in Suggestions, five or six days in Censorship, and then five days in Policies. I grant you, there was a bunch of wastage there. But at the time, everyone was very clear on what issues were being discussed, and anyone who wanted to could have easily found out where the discussion was. 1108. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:09:44 AM CG to A-5: "I support your right to request changes. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy."
The only people I recall offhand who have mentioned conspiracies are you and ChristinO. Others of us have said simply that the RoE was written and agreed upon without adequate notice to all, without truly representative input, in a politically charged atmosphere. The people who spoke up quickest and loudest, and the people who did the actual writing of the RoE, are those whose views were taken to represent a consensus. It should now be clear that there is some dissatisfaction with that "consensus".
"I am just making an observation, since I am responsible for UI and content."
In the interests of transparency (by which I mean transparency of rules and governance--I am not challenging your desire for anonymity in this instance), just what does it mean that you are "responsible for...content"?? Is not Wabbit, really, the one who is responsible for content?
"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."
Like Irv, I am not an expert in CalGalese, but if this means you are offering to put his change proposal up just as it is (or with changes proposed by people other than yourself and agreed to by Irv) so that it may be reviewed by Mote membership, then I formally request that you do so. If what you mean is that, because you are responsible for "content", you will rewrite it before offering it to the membership, then I strenuously object.
1109. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 2:14:47 AM Seguine:
I'm possibly a little better at CalGalese, and I believe she was referring to the FAQ, which is our next project around here.
In fact, I hope we can get past the RoE and move on to the FAQ, which will require more than a little discussion, unless I miss my guess. Fortunately, CalGal has given us a well-organized starting point, though I don't have the reference number for the post. 1110. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 2:24:23 AM The FAQ is linked from Message # 864. 1111. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:26:35 AM CG: "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?""
I support the right of the moderator and thread hosts to scoff at free speech claims, but the "tone" of this remark is precisely what must be avoided in all Mote policy material, FAQs, and boilerplate. One does not accuse people who may or may not have legitimate complaints, of "squawking", "whining", etc. One does not ask archly, "Perhaps you missed this?" Mote policy and explanatory verbiage should not sound as though it has been uttered to a transgressive rival by a contemptuous Heather Locklear.
Dusty: “I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes. “
Yes you did. So did I, a long while back, and A-5 also recalled aspects of the original process that were at odds with what's been claimed to have happened. (We both wondered what's so hard about notifying people of proposed policy changes via email.) Your analysis is most lucid and I wish Wabbit and/or Alistair would now speak to it.
CG to Dusty: “No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency."
Yes it was. 1112. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:30:06 AM IrvingSnodgrass
You can change that sentence to read "The Moderator then makes a decision taking that consensus into consideration" on your copy. But be careful to get the white-out on the right place on your screen.
???
I posted a legitimate concern and a proposed improvement. Why the smart-ass reply? 1113. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:31:59 AM Seg,
It should now be clear that there is some dissatisfaction with that "consensus".
Not much, Seguine. You, Angel, and Dusty. The change that is on the table is wording, not policy. Had you just stated an objection with the wording of the RoE, rather than declaring that it didn't represent a consensus, it would have been a different (and much shorter) conversation. And you yourself referred to "partisan" efforts, as well as my desire to control the forum.
Yet I see no acknowledgement on your part that the majority of people who posted here in this recent go-round expressed no agreement with your proposal or Angel's, but rather agreement with Irv's new wording or support for the existing RoE. This suggests the possibility that no misrepresentation took place, that those who told you that yes, the current Rules are supported by the membership weren't just making it up.
As to your other question:
I format all the text on this site, and write damn near all of it. I mentioned that because any RoE changes will be formatted by me and I wanted to move that piece to resolution--not because I was going to take action yet. In fact, I would take no action until I heard from Wabbit.
I don't see enough of a consensus yet for Irv's wording--more than a few people said either were fine, and some said that they preferred the existing RoE. Given that I had a few concerns, I thought I'd propose a third option, with Irv's wording (more formal) and my structure. I am not proposing this as anything other than a Mote member, so I really don't care if you object--strenuously or otherwise. 1114. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:35:02 AM CalGal, your post Msg num=1107> recites three long paragraphs of history. Not a single word relating to your assertion that silence=assent.
No one agrees with you. Please drop it and move on. 1115. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:35:36 AM Seguine,
No, Dusty made no posts in the original debate for transparency. He's said so himself.
I support the right of the moderator and thread hosts to scoff at free speech claims, but the "tone" of this remark is precisely what must be avoided in all Mote policy material, FAQs, and boilerplate.
The "Perhaps you missed this?" would not be in the policy material, but by the person making the link. The point being that we would have an answer spelled out at the site, rather than looking like we make it up as we go along.
1116. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:37:36 AM Dusty,
You transposed. Read the number again. 1117. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:39:07 AM From my msg 853 (my original proposed changes to the RoE were in msg 850; I've agreed to Irv's subsequent version):
"Some questions that should be adressed in the FAQ:
Q. Who runs the Mote? [A. As of [date], the following individuals perform the duties described here and may be contacted via the Moderator: [list]]
Q. What's the definition of "personal", definition of "private"?
Q. Copyright issues?
Q. How did the Mote come into existence? [provide history, mention Fray]
Q. How do I propose a policy change?"
Note that some of these questions may be implicit to some extent in the FAQ CalGal linked in 864.
That last (of mine) should probably follow a Q. that asks, "How are administrative decisions contested" and another that asks "How is Mote policy determined and implemented?"
1118. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:39:56 AM I just read my post about Irv's draft--I want to be clear that there was a good deal of support for his wording, and a good number who preferred it. Overall, I'd say the consensus is to formalize the tone. It is the structure and the part about spelling out the action taken that I'm less happy with, so I thought I'd create a draft with those two things addressed, keeping the formal tone. 1119. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:47:38 AM CalGal
No, Dusty made no posts in the original debate for transparency. He's said so himself.
Seguine stated that she thought I made my position clear. As did I. Your retort isn't responsive to the issue. 1120. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:48:38 AM Oops, meant that to be italics, not yelling. My bad. I'll try to use "Check for dust" 1121. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:52:13 AM CalGal
You transposed. Read the number again.
I said 1107. I meant 1107. I missed the opening angle bracket, so it didn't create the link.
I'll try again. Message # 1107 1122. seguine - 2/27/2000 3:05:45 AM "And you yourself referred to "partisan" efforts, as well as my desire to control the forum."
Of course I have, for those efforts and your desire to control the forum are part of what is known as politicking, not "conspiracy" or "cabal". You enjoy politicking; others could give a shit, but nevertheless don't care to be dominated by a contingent voice.
As a partisan you are, in my opinion, about as fit to decide whether a consensus was ever reached (or whether sufficient antipathy to your version of policy exists now to warrant change) as any presidential hopeful is credible when he says, in public, that his campaign is poised to win a given primary. Claiming you have the will of the 'people' on your side does not make it true (or false, for that matter).
If, as you claim, you see no substantive difference in Irv's RoE from the one you drafted, then you should have nothing against putting it up for review. You should not be proposing to change it at all. ("I thought I'd propose a third option, with Irv's wording (more formal) and my structure.")
It should come as no surprise, incidentally, that I do not accept your explanations of your repeated questioning of the process of policy re-examination now under way. Were you truly disinterested--and in your controller-of-interface capacity you damned well should be--you should have no opinion about it one way or the other.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
