|
1160. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 11:34:36 AM I think this is going to get nasty if it keeps up, so I'm just going to say this and then hopefully we can move on and put Irv's revision up on the big board and be done with this for a little while. Most of the Motiers who have objected to the old RoE or stated a preference for the new RoE have mentioned tone. They also have mentioned clarity and specificity. Yet, CalGal, though you've already been corrected on it once, you insist on saying it's a matter of tone and then go on your merry way rewriting. You really need to realize that clarity and specificity are important to many of the people who have, which is why the specificity relating to the Moderator -- not constraint, but specificity -- is a valuable part of Irv's revision of your old RoE. I see no additional clarity in your re-revision and I see indeed a loss of specificity as to function. Given that otherwise every single thing in your re-revision is a direct copy of Irving's draft, I'm totally at a loss as to what, if any, legitimate point you may have in 'rewriting' Irving's draft. Certainly no one else has called for a revision of Irv's draft which muddles up the agency of post moving and deletion because they're worried it's all a little too specific when Irv explicitly links thread hosts and moderators to deletion. 1161. Seguine - 2/27/2000 12:37:52 PM To be fair: CalGal may not understand why Irv broke up items 1-2 and 3-4.
My understanding of the reason for the structure of the Irv Version, which I hasten to add is taken solely from reading it and not from any avowal on his part, is that:
For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions.
For rules 3 and 4, the Moderator and the Thread Hosts make all decisions.
However, for all four rules, the Moderator is the final arbiter. (That's why the clause "The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator" is in a separate paragraph. It refers to all the previous four sections.)
Note, too, that the meaning is changed from Irv's:
"Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final."
to CalGal's:
"For violations of Rules 3 and 4, the offending posts are subject to possible deletion or relocation by the Thread Host or the Moderator. In serious cases, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator."
CG's edit of the Irv Version has the Moderator as well as Thread Hosts deleting posts for abusiveness and spam. I believe this is accurate, but not essential to convey. That is, I don't object to "Moderator" being included in the paragraph per CG's edit; however when one reads the rules as Irv wrote them, I think one probably doesn't wonder whether the Moderator may delete or move posts, since she may do far worse and in fact is the ultimate judge of hosts' as well as posters' behavior.
1162. Seguine - 2/27/2000 12:48:28 PM Also, Irv specifies that posts may be moved to the Inferno. This strikes me as a useful specific, so I'm not sure why the CG edit doesn't include it.
As for the definitions of "private information," "threats," and "needlessly abusive", the first is defined adequately by Irv's asterisk text; the second and third are left undefined on purpose because their definition in any given event is the prerogative of the Moderator to decide. The "serious and intentional" language in Irv's explanation of items 1 and 2 makes clear that asessing the nature of disclosures and threats is the Moderator's job. There is no need to invite transgression by delving into specifics.
1163. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2000 12:58:08 PM Incidentally, making the moderator the final arbiter of a host's editorial discretion is a change from the current RoE, at least as practiced if not in letter. When wabbit made me host of Spiritual Issues, she specifically said "I won't second-guess you."
And Nos was removed as host at his request. Strictly speaking, he didn't even get in trouble for deleting all of RS's posts--rather, it was putting the thread on read-only and bringing the situation to wabbit that ultimately resulted in the two of them having a suspension (because as I recall, she had told them to cool it).
Given wabbit's generally benign hand in subsequent disruptions, I think it's safe to say Nos could have served his suspension and resumed hosting duties had he not requested to be relieved of them.
This centralization-of-power change IMO is what Niner was referring to when he objected to Irv's version. 1164. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:07:39 PM For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions.
Interesting. My understanding is that a thread host should immediately delete a post if it contains a threat or private information.
That was why I changed it--because Irv's wording gave the impression that only the Moderator could delete posts, and that only the thread host could move things. While this would normally be the case, I thought it'd be safer to describe what could actually happen. The Moderator can move posts as well as the Thread Host. Were Wabbit to move posts and people were to squawk, it wouldn't be very helpful to say, "Well, she can move posts, too, but we figured just didn't spell that out." I mean, who needs the aggravation?
If that isn't the case--if Wabbit will never move posts other than in her thread and Thread Hosts can't delete posts with threats or private information, then I agree the difference should be spelled out. But I would certainly delete any post that contained private information in my thread, so if I'm not supposed to, we should make that clear to all thread hosts now.
Also, Irv specifies that posts may be moved to the Inferno. This strikes me as a useful specific, so I'm not sure why the CG edit doesn't include it.
I should have underlined the "relocation", as I did with the "abuse", "private info", etc. My thought was to keep the rules simple, as Irv clearly designed it, but provide links (presumably to somewhere in the FAQ) to spell out what could happen in greater detail.
1165. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:08:16 PM the first is defined adequately by Irv's asterisk text; the second and third are left undefined on purpose because their definition in any given event is the prerogative of the Moderator to decide
Agreed, but still: people will want to know what we mean by "abuse" and people will want to know what we mean by "threat", just as they want to know what is meant by "private information". My thought was to provide expanded information in a consistent manner. I think there is just as much need to explain threats and (particularly) abuse--even if it is just that yes, we do indeed leave the definition up to the moderator.
But whatever we do, the link (underlined) and the asterisk will provide the same functionality--more information on the term. So it's mainly an interface issue, not one of content. I would use Irv's wording regardless.
1166. Seguine - 2/27/2000 1:09:10 PM I do still think the Irv Version (and CG's edit) would benefit by eliminating the "possible"s I mentioned previously. These qualify the fact that action may be taken, thus weakening the warning against the prohibited behavior.
Also, Irv asked, in response to my query about its meaning, that the disclaimer "Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved" be reviewed by one of the Mote's attorney types. However, we haven't heard from the lawyers about the disclaimer yet. Would someone please speak up?
My impression of the disclaimer as it stands is that it refers either to copyright or to management's ultimate control of the site. Since the former is a dicey subject that the disclaimer doesn't really begin to address, then i'm guessing someone originally suggested this mention of "rights" thinking that it conveyed something about the speech rights of people who have been granted access to the Mote. But as far as I can see, it conveys nothing in particular. No "rights" have been granted at all; it's a little confusing to read that some mysterious rights I hadn't thought about having are "reserved". (By whom?)
If folks feel a disclaimer is needed, then in order to determine what the disclaimer should say, a clear understanding of what it is supposed to guard against must first be established. 1167. Seguine - 2/27/2000 1:27:53 PM "I should have underlined the "relocation", ..."
No, but you could have suggested that "Inferno" be underlined and FAQ-linked in Irv's version, since anyone who had not visited The Inferno thread wouldn't know what it was for. (The explanation in the FAQ could simply be Wabbit's explanation from the thread itself.)
"My thought was to keep the rules simple, as Irv clearly designed it, but provide links (presumably to somewhere in the FAQ) to spell out what could happen in greater detail."
The spelling out of "what could happen in greater detail" is an exceptionally bad idea, for it may appear to circumscribe Wabbit's authority by detailing in x or y case just what retribution may occur. You will inevitably fail to consider some other, possible, case. All those links would be invitations to find loopholes to exploit.
1168. Seguine - 2/27/2000 1:47:47 PM "Agreed, but still: people will want to know what we mean by "abuse" and people will want to know what we mean by "threat", just as they want to know what is meant by "private information".
Just as specified in Irv's draft, "we" mean by "abuse" and "threat" just precisely what the thread hosts and/or moderator interpret those words to mean. Attempts at clarifying the terms will simply intrude on host/moderator preferences. "Private information" is by necessity of membership preference (including your own!) not as vague a term, which is why it is defined.
"My thought was to provide expanded information in a consistent manner. I think there is just as much need to explain threats and (particularly) abuse--even if it is just that yes, we do indeed leave the definition up to the moderator."
Your statement is contradictory. Sometimes less is more, CalGal. Irv's text already spells out all a participant needs to know about the definition of threats/abuse: the moderator is the ultimate authority. The definitions are subjective.
"But whatever we do, the link (underlined) and the asterisk will provide the same functionality--more information on the term. So it's mainly an interface issue, not one of content. I would use Irv's wording regardless."
Personally, I prefer having the definition of "private information online" asterisked and located right where it is in Irv's version. Especially when they're eager to begin posting, people don't always use links. You're proposing too many as it is. A single FAQ link at the bottom of this short document should be sufficient. Every word in it needn't be hyperactive.
1169. Seguine - 2/27/2000 2:07:50 PM Seg: "For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions."
CG: "Interesting. My understanding is that a thread host should immediately delete a post if it contains a threat or private information."
Yes, I summarized too abruptly. I should have specified that the Moderator makes all decisions about suspension and banning from the Mote. (One issue that might ought to be addressed in the FAQ is whether thread hosts can ban posters from their threads.)
Read Irv's again:
"For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional."
Note that it's non-specific as to who deletes. 1170. Seguine - 2/27/2000 2:09:08 PM
fuck 1171. Seguine - 2/27/2000 2:10:44 PM The effect of the bold should have been to highlight the phrase "will be deleted,", including its comma. 1172. Seguine - 2/27/2000 2:25:16 PM "That was why I changed it--because Irv's wording gave the impression that only the Moderator could delete posts, and that only the thread host could move things."
Well, that's obviously not why you changed it, because Irv's wording gives no such impression.
It's only in the second explanatory section, for 3 and 4 (abuse and spam) that there may be an excuse for a revision that specifies that the Moderator may delete and move. As I said in the last paragraph of Message # 1161, the clarification would serve accuracy but isn't really necessary, as no one would presume that the God-like Moderator who can delete threats and private info references, who can suspend and ban, who is the ultimate arbiter of all host and participant behavior, for some reason cannot delete and move to the Inferno abuse and spam. 1173. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 6:50:42 PM My connection is so slow right now I can't page back to make comments, so I'll do it from memory.
A5:
You questioned the book deal earlier. This has been discussed a number of times, mostly in the Suggestions thread. It's a good deal... it's voluntary, costs the buyer nothing, and provides a small kickback to the Mote, which we can use for a backup server or other purposes.
It will be in the FAQ. Your comment underlines the need for an FAQ, since there are other things we've decided and implemented which aren't explained in a single place.
Cal, Seguine:
Both of you have made good comments on my RoE proposal. How about if I attempt a rewrite, based on Cal's comments? Then I'll know what I'm saying and can explain further where necessary.
I'd rather not go through and respond comment by comment, especially since my connection isn't allowing me to move around the thread easily. 1174. JayAckroyd - 2/27/2000 9:11:20 PM Message # 1143
Seguine
I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?
Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems, and am really glad we have wabbit around. The rules invite testing, hypothetical exploration, and people charging into the suggestions thread demanding bans.
But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods. 1175. Dusty - 2/27/2000 9:43:03 PM IrvingSnodgrass
I'm not used to being called a smart ass. Do you really think it fits?
No.
For that reason, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and it still didn't come across as an attempt at humor. But I was probably in a bad mood, so I'll assume it was my bad reading. My apologies. 1176. Seguine - 2/27/2000 11:41:54 PM Irv: "How about if I attempt a rewrite...?"
I was hoping you would.
Jay: "I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?"
You lose your protection. (But never mind.)
"Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems..."
Yeah, but I have a feeling ID openness would also be fraught, and for the same reason it's unworkable to have two sets of rules: too much management required. For open-ID to work it would have to be absolute, and ensuring someone wasn't hiding behind a pseud could perhaps get complicated. Also, annoying. (Presumably, there's a Moderator Irritation Quotient that must be figured into the 'cost' of one forum model as compared with another.)
"But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods."
We agree.
1177. JayAckroyd - 2/27/2000 11:57:23 PM It's true that pseudonym policing becomes a problem in an environment where openness is enforced. In the open sites I've been involved in in the past, it was enforced by billing name on the credit card used for the subscription. As a free site, we don't have that option.
That's why I believe all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light. 1178. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:04:09 AM "...all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light."
You're one of them Baha'is, aren't you? 1179. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 1:14:07 AM Summer Breeze, makes me feel fine, blowing through the of my mind......
Although I prefer the Type O Negative cover.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
