The Board Rules

[loCAtek]

Um, I said I was resigned to the rule; but that I just didn't like it.

Likes or taste isn't debatable, and to quote someone, "Just because you've silenced [or banned] someone doesn't mean you've converted them."

Or;

“A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
― Benjamin Franklin

[Scooter]

Earth to LoCa: you're not helping yourself with this....faux cluelessness and arrogant defiance is not going win you supporters...

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that this



never managed to make it onto her reading list.

[Lord Jim]

No, I should say not....

[Gob]

[oldr_n_wsr]

If there are no hard and fast rules, then how can we agree with them?

The way I interpret the opening post is that there are no rules until some behaviour is brought to the admins (and possibly everyone elses) attention. At that point the admin would inquire of the members for a possible solution (if not already debated) then put the various solutions in a poll to be voted on.

Sounds a lot like what has happened in the past and is happening right now.

The possible exception has been with the edit time limit which was forever? and then changed to a week before any open debate (IIRC). After the edit time limit was "discovered" (and I don't believe that it was changed maliciously nor due to any posters complaint nor any abuse) debate ensued and then a poll (or both at the same time, I forget or wasn't here at the time) and it was agreed to be kept at 1 week time limit.
and as I said before, I don't think edit time limit falls under any kind of "rule" to me it is more of a "restriction"

Self policing is IMHO the way to go and only after repeated behaviour does the admins need to be notified. Case in point is me refering to bigskygal how personal names in posts is "bad form". She edited her post and the case is closed. No need for a hard and fast rule, no need to alert the admins. Problem solved.

[Gob]

Well said mate!

[tyro]

Friends should always welcome friends.

People who are made to be alone are – keep up on the logic here – are alone.

It seems to me that at least one draw card to web forums is to either attract, or create an outcast.

Alas, some things never change.


Good- by again.

[Gob]

A shame.

Why make a very worthy contribution and then run away?

[Lord Jim]

I'm sorry oldr, but there was just way too much common sense in that post....

"We'll not have that sort of thing 'round here."

[The Hen]

That was Tyro.

[Lord Jim]

I was referring to oldr's post above that.

[The Hen]

Ahh.

[Big RR]

If everything (or nearly all decisions) are to be decided by the membership, then there is basically nothing to agree or disagree with. IMHO, it would then depend on what the membership does--I can think of many things that wouldn't bother me at all, and many other things that would make me leave the board forever on principle. I can't agree or disagree in advance.

[Crackpot]

You're just pissed because we voted that you have to pick up the check at dinner.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That is funny CP.

What bothers me about "votes" on banning people is the rather obvious point that many of those who propose such votes and yammer on about 'democracy' are the first to declare that 'majority rules' is not the way society should actually be run.

If it were so and majority rules, then where is the death penalty? How and why did homosexuality become a non-criminal act? What was Hitler's real mistake - bad public relations?

In each case, clear majorities back in the day supported the death penalty (and perhaps still do), opposed the legalisation of homosexual behaviour and declared Adolf a jolly good chap to invite to a picnic, preferably across the nearest border.

'Democratic' votes however were not required to overturn death penalties (and that's not restricted to the USA), to remove restrictive laws on homosexual conduct and take care of Hitler by an eventual landslide vote in Germany against his naughty behaviour.

Obviously "majority rules" is not an approach that 'liberals' will tolerate - nor perhaps conservatives and shades between for that matter. I doubt that Sue and I share common political ideas in the main for example - but both are unwilling to support votes to ban posters.

What happens to a 15-14 vote (assuming there are even 29 actual posters interested) - majority rules? I don't think so. Is 20-9 enough to criminalise someone? How about 27-2?

So today it's Loca and tomorrow maybe it's me (I can hear Scooter cranking up the vote box and rubato handing out fliers ) - and maybe anyone with an axe to grind will start putting up "let's ban so-and so" polls.

Constructively I think that polls on how the board is run should only be initiated by the administrators after they consult with each other. Starting threads that seek the board's comments are a different matter.

Meade

[Scooter]

The analogies you are drawing are specious. Democratic processes were used to establish the structures that came to the decisions you cite as examples, precisely because in a society of thousands or millions of people, direct democracy cannot work. What do you suggest, that we select from among us members to sit as legislators and judges? If not, then what process, other than direct democracy, do you claim will work better here?

As to your allegations that I am planning to use this case as some sort of a precedent to initiate polls to ban other posters, let me remind you that in the only other poll proposing to ban a poster, I expressed my very forceful opposition in spite of the fact, and it is no secret to anyone, that it involved someone with whom I had a longstanding acrimonious relationship and who I would have very much preferred would just disappear, but the circumstances, in my opinion, did not warrant a ban and I said as much. I, and obviously many others, view the current case differently, as evident by the wide disparity in result between the two polls.

I categorically reject the implication that I or anyone who voted yes in the poll in question were making use of democracy as some sort of pretext, or that we made our decision lightly and without regard to its implications. But I am not going to refrain from supporting a course of action which I believe to be correct today, because someone might use that course of action in an inappropriate way tomorrow.

As to only admins initiating polls on board operations, I fail to see the logic. Surely an idea wil or will not be seen by the membership as worthy of support regardless of whether it is proposed by an admin or some other member. I suspect this proposal derives more from disapproval of the poll question, the result and the poster who created it, than it does from any principle that admins are somehow more "worthy" than anyone else when it comes to starting polls.

[Rick]

ya know you make a good point.

I don't know who "so-and so" is but I believe they should be banned...

[Lord Jim]

So today it's Loca and tomorrow maybe it's me (I can hear Scooter cranking up the vote box and rubato handing out fliers ) - and maybe anyone with an axe to grind will start putting up "let's ban so-and so" polls.

Slippery Slope Fallacy
Explanation

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

[The Hen]

I know there is a majority vote in favour of your poll Scooter. But I am not convinced that the numbers are large enough in favour of it for it to occur.

[Scooter]

That's fine, I never expected it would be as simplistic as conduct a poll and someone would be turfed.

But I do think that if it isn't going to happen, some discussion is warranted about what the limits should be during what was supposed to be probation.