|
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. 1123. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:06:26 AM Dusty,
What the hell are you talking about? I referred you to an earlier discussion, since you claimed that no one had been notified of this thread and the discussion. I referred you to 1017 in Suggestions. If that's not what you're talking about, I'm uninterested.
As for the other, if you posted on your support for requiring transparency, please point me to it. I missed it. In any event, it is clear that there was one other person who is in favor of transparency. That still doesn't suggest the massive suppression or conspiracy to thwart the desire of the membership, which is what the accusation suggests. 1124. seguine - 2/27/2000 3:07:51 AM "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."
No. 1125. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:15:19 AM Seguine,
Irv's draft is up for review, and has been so since he posted it. Is that not clear? There is no next step.
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".
Actually, I don't engage in politics. I express my opinion. It's you who characterizes it as politicking, and it's really not that big a leap from politicking to conspiracy. I certainly don't think you are "politicking" for change, and yet you are doing the same thing I am--expressing your opinion.
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.
I format the text and write everything until someone comes along and complains. I have quite often made changes that I don't personally agree with, and will continue to do so. It's not required that I approve changes--in fact, I have no authority to do so. I "control", to a certain extent, the look and feel of the site. Not the policy. 1126. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:16:48 AM Seguine,
Message # 1124
Too bad. I am allowed to do it, just as you are allowed to do it. There is no "No". It is clearly on the table to propose RoE drafts, so that's how it works. Anyone else can propose one, too. In fact, I think you did, didn't you? 1127. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:17:25 AM However, for now, this is getting personal--and tedious. So I'm checking out for a while to let the conspiracy mongers have at me. 1128. dusty - 2/27/2000 3:19:12 AM CalGal
What the hell are you talking about?
You quoted my request:
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.
Apparently you mistook my request for a reference to an announcement that silence=assent to a request for an announcement of something else. So when you starting making reference to things that had nothing to do with what I asked,
I did't understand. Was I unclear? Could the "it", in "please refer to it" mean something other than the prior sentence? 1129. dusty - 2/27/2000 3:30:55 AM CalGal
That still doesn't suggest the massive suppression or conspiracy to thwart the desire of the membership, which is what the accusation suggests.
Your word-twisting is tedious. I never claimed some conspiricy. That seems to be your favorite term. But you expressed the opinion that only two people "posted in favor of transparency", so I wanted to make it clear that others supported the concept. 1130. seguine - 2/27/2000 3:31:23 AM CalGal,
I misunderstood what you said you'd do. If you're proposing making alterations to Irv's text and putting them up for approval here, I can have no objection; although of course it will then be necessary for the Calgalized version to survive a critique, which must then bring you and your ever-present intentions into the discussion once again.
You already have an RoE version on the table. It's linked on every page. Irv's is a compromise of yours and others'. How many more with your input in them do we require?
|
