|
1041. JayAckroyd - 2/24/2000 10:20:16 PM It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
I prefer the new wording.
1042. Seguine - 2/25/2000 12:12:05 AM Jay, my guess is that most people don't care (no one reads the RoE); or else, when this thread got moved back off the front page, most people quit reading and so are unaware of Irv's proposal. In case it's the latter, I have posted a notice in Thread Suggestions. 1043. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 12:12:25 AM Jay...that is because the issues surounding policy are control related, personality dominated, or motivated by hostility, for a least some posters. EG, Seguine uses the topic as a chance to partronize and let us know she is smarter/better than others(wanna compare resumes Seg? you can accept the challenge at ozzienelson@hotmail.com )...why else would she substantially contribute to a "future policy" discussion on a forum that she doesn't like and intends to leave? BTW... The original ROE or Irv's are fine with me. 1044. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 12:23:46 AM IMO this has been a big discussion about something that doesn't appear to be a large problem. The discussion is much bigger than anything causing it. I concur with PP that either version is fine because I really don't see a substantive difference.
Whatever is "wrong" with the Mote currently--and it appears to me to be very healthy for an online forum of its size--it's not with the ROE. 1045. soupisgoodfood - 2/25/2000 12:40:59 AM I vote for Irv's wording. 1046. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:03 AM I agree with IJ's post 1044. Both versions are fine, and we're making way too mcuh of the Rules of Engagement. 1047. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:21 AM whoops mcuh=much 1048. JayAckroyd - 2/25/2000 1:19:43 AM PP-
I prefer Irv's version because it's simpler, but the rules don't really matter. The moderator does. If the moderator is not judicious, temperate and thick-skinned, the best of all possible rules will still fail.
I agree that there's been way too much discussion of this.
Seguine may or may not vanish. We've all sometimes regretted the amount of time we spend here, I suspect. I certainly should not be writing this post right now.
1049. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/25/2000 1:30:50 AM It's true that my version does not differ substantively from the earlier version, which stated the same information. All I did was take out some of the redundancy, and removed the invitations to try and break the rules ("don't push the envelope").
Contrary to what someone said earlier, I didn't make any penalties more specific. In fact, just the opposite. I tried to more clearly state that the moderator is the final judge on any rule violations.
The first draft of the rules were fine. I just tried to tighten them up. 1050. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 1:35:19 AM Is it possible to show Irv's (and other's as well) version again?
I have finally read the RoE -- I think they are brief and clear, but I'm willing to compare them with any other drafts to see if it can still be bettered. 1051. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 1:52:56 AM PM: Here's Irv's version. 1052. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 2:21:12 AM Thanks, Indiana.
I can accept Irv's version. 1053. Seguine - 2/25/2000 3:40:24 AM PsychProf. For the second time: you've not been the target of any insult of mine. I'm sure you're a very accomplished guy. 1054. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 4:39:26 AM I give up. 1055. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 7:09:27 AM FWIW, PP, I agree with you. 1056. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 7:30:08 AM
I'm against the changes to the RoE.
I could support them, IF Irv & co. explained precisely what policy changes the changes in wording are supposed to effect.
If there is NO change, that's fine, then I guess I could support them. I wouldn't really see the point, but if everyone wants a change, that's fine. 1057. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/25/2000 10:39:32 PM Ace:
My proposed version doesn't change any policies. It is an attempt to simplify and clarify the wording of our existing policies, and remove what I perceived as invitations to break the rules. 1058. 109109 - 2/26/2000 4:38:16 AM I oppose Irv's version because it suggests democracy, and I prefer the version of the Mote as warring but blood-related fiefdoms under a toothless central authority. 1059. dusty - 2/26/2000 6:29:11 AM Message # 1041 JayAckroyd
It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
There's a reason that I haven't bothered. It seems a waste of time to talk about proposed new rules when we do not have a procedure for deciding how to approve them.
Most venues have a rule for deciding how to adopt rules. True democracies (thankfully, rare) put the matter up for a vote, and let the majority rule. we aren't a democracy, so the fact that we have no voting procedure probably doesn't matter.
Absolute dictators have rule. Whatever they say, goes. There's not much point of debate if that is our model.
Some committees operate on the basis of formal voting, other on the basis of consensus. In the latter, debate ensues until someone (normally the chair) asks if there is a consensus. Silence is considered assent, and, lacking dissent, the policy is changed. Please note that lack of dissent is not equivalent to 100% approval. (Examples upon request.) I read the history of the RoE, and did not find a single instance where this question was posed. So this isn't our model.
A benevolent dictator asks for input, and then makes a decision, giving due weight (possibly zero) to those opposed. I thought that this might be our model, but it appears not to be the case.
After reading this thread, I cannot determine the date, or the action that occurred that signified the acceptance of the RoE by the community.
Until someone explains what the procedure is for changing rules, discussing alternative rules is pointless.
In summary, we are using a voting rule, we aren't using a consensus rule, we aren't using a dictator(absolute or benevolent) rule, so what are we doing? 1060. dusty - 2/26/2000 6:42:05 AM Message # 856 IrvingSnodgrass
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
I'm sympathetic to this concern, despite my last post that comments on how the prior rules were formulated (or to be precise, my lack of understanding as to how they were formulated.)
It is only of secondary interest to learn how the prior rules were formulated. If the answer is as simple as, "they just happened", so be it. But I cannot justify spending time debating changes to rules, if we have no procedure for adopting a change.
I recited my view of the history, because there have been some strong statements implying that the procedure was well defined. If it was, I missed it.
|
