Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

[MajGenl.Meade]

I hate to say I told you so.

Nah, who am I kidding. People who were believing she had it in her to change might as well have been hoping that dogs stop licking themselves. And they now can see exactlly how far that got them.

Point taken

[Lord Jim]

I don't know how other people who voted against her being banned (as I did) feel, (or how people who held off voting at all may feel) but this latest strategy of hers is starting to make me feel manipulated, and that is pissing me off...

She needs to stop trying to figure out ways to continue doing what she's been doing without getting banned and

JUST KNOCK IT OFF

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ

You know - the occasional 'plaint is understandable but you've got a jones here and you're outnumbering Loca about 3 to 1 at the moment!

You can get pissed off at me now (er.... more) (again)

Meade

[Lord Jim]

Sorry Meade, but I checked out this thread this morning, and saw that she'd started yet another round, this time with the "rules" BS...

And then I saw that she's even pulling this trolling crap in the Hardware forum....

And I started to think about the pattern here, and frankly I'm starting feel like she's been playing me, and everyone else who has tried to be patient and optimistic about her, for suckers....

And there's very little that ticks me off more than being played for a sucker....

[Andrew D]

There are no hard and fast board rules for this board.
Any issues of contention will be put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll.

The second sentence there - that's the rule.

Only in an extremely weak sense, General. Even taken by itself -- and all the more so when taken with the immediately preceding sentence -- that is rather less a rule than a decision mechanism in lieu of a rule.

I am not disputing that various posters' complaints about loCAtek's conduct have been presented to her in considerable detail. They have.

(I have often found the presentations confusing -- at one point, I tried to ascertain the specifics of the complaints and their bases, but I gave up; and it does not help that her defenses of her conduct (insofar as I have read them) have been at least as scattershot as the complaints themselves -- but in most cases, it seems to me that the gist of the complaints is there. I am not here to defend her or to take issue with her. I am making a general point about the inadequacy of "put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll" as a so-called "rule".)

That someone's behavior will be "put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll" is not a rule, in the sense which matters most, at all. It provides no guidance to someone who is considering whether to post or to refrain from posting a particular thing.

On the contrary, it is an invitation to the sort of behavior (in this case, collective behavior) which the law likes to call "arbitrary and capricious". It is entirely possible that two different posters could behave in ways which are not significantly distinguishable from each other, but the consequences could be very different. Those consequences could depend on the simple vagaries of who is around to participate in the considerations and debates of each poster's behavior, who feels like voting in particular polls, etc. But those consequences could -- and in my estimation, are more likely to -- depend on the relative popularity of the posters in question.

In short, it is virtually inevitable that a popular poster will be able to get away with behavior which will get an unpopular poster sanctioned. If that is a "rule," then we have a good name for it: "mob rule".

[Daisy]

I have said it before and will say it again.

The admins of this board such as we are spent a LONG time, over a year in fact discussing how this situation should be handled. In all that time despite private and public warnings LoCA continued down the route of insulting and harassing other members of the board.

We thought the only fair thing to do when all other avenues had been entirely exhausted was to ask the board membership what should be done.

Some people agreed with that some people didn't ... Everyone had a say. For me the "arbitrary and capricious" solution would have been to ban her without warning.

[Gob]

In short, it is virtually inevitable that a popular poster will be able to get away with behavior which will get an unpopular poster sanctioned. If that is a "rule," then we have a good name for it: "mob rule".

So your suggestion for how we should regulate this forum, and ease the tensions created by one person's continuous destructive abuse of the board and members here, would be what?

[Rick]

Votes that involve popularity occur all the time.

Elected officials are allowed or disallowed to become members of a select club based in no small measure on popularity.

Now if that vote for membership was deemed as some form of subordination I might agree that it could be deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Besides we all know that the mob rules...

[Joe Guy]

But those consequences could -- and in my estimation, are more likely to -- depend on the relative popularity of the posters in question.

In short, it is virtually inevitable that a popular poster will be able to get away with behavior which will get an unpopular poster sanctioned. If that is a "rule," then we have a good name for it: "mob rule".

Balderdash!

And highly illogical.

A "popular poster" would not be popular if he/she behaved in a way that makes one unpopular.

For proof of that all you need to do is follow the history of Loca.

[The Hen]

(I have often found the presentations confusing -- at one point, I tried to ascertain the specifics of the complaints and their bases, but I gave up; and it does not help that her defenses of her conduct (insofar as I have read them) have been at least as scattershot as the complaints themselves -- but in most cases, it seems to me that the gist of the complaints is there. I am not here to defend her or to take issue with her. I am making a general point about the inadequacy of "put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll" as a so-called "rule".)

I really dont see how my primary complaint could have been any clearer or less scattershot. I limited it (and will continue to limit it) to the one matter raised in the Mediation thread.

I answered all questions raised by you and went into detail (that potentially was not required) in order to ensure more shite was not flung my way. That did not work.

I would welcome you to advise how you think it would be more appropriate to handle her if, as a Board, we are to manage her vile personal slurs?

If not put to a membership poll, what would be appropriate? (Noting that we have not needed to have such a procedure implemented before.)

Can we not agree that, for the most part, we are adults and are aware of what is appropriate conduct?

[Andrew D]

The admins of this board such as we are spent a LONG time, over a year in fact discussing how this situation should be handled. In all that time despite private and public warnings LoCA continued down the route of insulting and harassing other members of the board.

* * *

For me the "arbitrary and capricious" solution would have been to ban her without warning.

As I posted above, Daisy:

I am not disputing that various posters' complaints about loCAtek's conduct have been presented to her in considerable detail. They have.

My point is general. Majority rule does not necessarily result in arbitrary and capricious behavior in all cases. But it opens the door to such behavior. So given time, individual instances of such behavior are virtually inevitable.

[Andrew D]

I agree with you, Hen.

(I have often found the presentations confusing -- at one point, I tried to ascertain the specifics of the complaints and their bases, but I gave up; and it does not help that her defenses of her conduct (insofar as I have read them) have been at least as scattershot as the complaints themselves -- but in most cases, it seems to me that the gist of the complaints is there. I am not here to defend her or to take issue with her. I am making a general point about the inadequacy of "put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll" as a so-called "rule".)

I really dont see how my primary complaint could have been any clearer or less scattershot.

And it was clear and not scattershot. Which is why I posted at the time:

Thanks, Hen. This:

In respect to this issue, I have made no assertions other than I have never posted that I willingly gave away my virginity at nine.

is certainly clear and concise.

Lamentably, many of the complaints made here by posters about other posters do not share those virtues.

[Andrew D]

Votes that involve popularity occur all the time.

Elected officials are allowed or disallowed to become members of a select club based in no small measure on popularity.

We elect officials to represent us in one capacity or another, keld feldspar. As far as I am aware, no one here represents me for any purpose. The question put to the membership about loCAtek was (or included) whether she should be allowed to post here, not whether she should somehow represent any or all of us. Popularity may be an entirely appropriate consideration in choosing a representative. But in choosing a penalty to be imposed on a wrongdoer, popularity should play no role.

[Andrew D]

A "popular poster" would not be popular if he/she behaved in a way that makes one unpopular.

Balderdash yourself, Joe Guy. That might be true if we were all paragons of objectivity. But we are not.

Poster A blatantly misrepresents what Poster B has written, and there is a chorus of outraged howling. Poster C equally blatantly misrepresents what Poster D has written, an the ensuing silence is deafening. Poster E writes vicious nastiness about Poster F, and the board goes ballistic. Poster G writes equally vicious nastiness about Poster H, and the board says nothing (or almost nothing).

Not that that happens all the time, of course. Quite the contrary. Still, it happens often enough to show up clearly under even casual observation.

There is a lot of complaining about loCAtek's having insulted various posters. And much of that complaining may very well be justified. But when she is called a "drunken whore," a "lying cowardly cunt," a "drunken slut," a "short fat turd, with a face like a dog's arse," and "so unloveable that even [her] family despises [her]" -- and that is only a cursory sampling -- those who subject her to that abuse receive, on the rare occasions when they receive anything at all, nothing more than what amounts to a mild "tsk, tsk".

One of the most common of human imperfections is the tendency to find misbehavior by those whom we do not like to be outrageous while finding substantively identical misbehavior by those whom we do like to be merely regrettable. All of us, to varying degrees, suffer that infirmity.

And that is one of the great dangers of democracy. And it is one of the principal reasons why all of the "developed" nations which like to call themselves "democracies" have actually taken great pains to ensure that they are not democracies.

Those whose board this is are, obviously, free to run it however they wish. I merely suggest that those who advocate majority rule as the mechanism for deciding who may post here and who may not might do well to remember John Stuart Mill's salutary reminder of the neccessity of protecting "against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them".

[Scooter]

There is a lot of complaining about loCAtek's having insulted various posters.

No, that is not what is being complained about.

And much of that complaining may very well be justified. But when she is called a "drunken whore," a "lying cowardly cunt," a "drunken slut," a "short fat turd, with a face like a dog's arse," and "so unloveable that even [her] family despises [her]" -- and that is only a cursory sampling -- those who subject her to that abuse receive, on the rare occasions when they receive anything at all, nothing more than what amounts to a mild "tsk, tsk".

And if that was all loCA had done, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

[Scooter]

Popularity may be an entirely appropriate consideration in choosing a representative. But in choosing a penalty to be imposed on a wrongdoer, popularity should play no role.

Then what do you suggest? Create a tribunal, appoint judges? Leave the power to suspend/ban people completely to the admins? Wouldn't all of those also run the risk of being tainted by popularity?

Or are you suggesting we do nothing, and give posters free rein to accuse each other of statutory rape, of fraudulently misrepresenting their professional credentials, and other similarly libellous statements?

[The Hen]

Perhaps if parameters for the currently accepted poll option to suceed should be set?

Consider this scenario, if on a "Category A"* poll was set 85% or higher, for any penalty against a member, with other categories carrying different penalties, it may result in less of a 'Popularity Vote' that is of concern.


*. Catergory A - action against a member = XX%+
Category B - request a change in Board functionality = XX%+
Category C - silly humorous poll = N/A
Category D - ?

Thoughts?

[Big RR]

Popularity may be an entirely appropriate considerati'owners" can contron in choosing a representative. But in choosing a penalty to be imposed on a wrongdoer, popularity should play no role.

Then what do you suggest? Create a tribunal, appoint judges? Leave the power to suspend/ban people completely to the admins? Wouldn't all of those also run the risk of being tainted by popularity?

Or are you suggesting we do nothing, and give posters free rein to accuse each other of statutory rape, of fraudulently misrepresenting their professional credentials, and other similarly libellous statements?

Scooter--I can't speak for Andrew, but my own personal answer to your last question is yes, other than to ignore them. Now I was absent for the discussion and events that led to Lo's suspension, which is why I have avoided commenting, but I would not wish to post on a board which can vote to expel a member for whatever the members choose. Granted no one has a right to post on any board, and the "owners" or members or whatever can impose whatever rules they want, but I would not want to remain part of a board which acts to ban a member for expressing views, however inflammatory or odious they are. Now that might change if, e.g., someone attempted to wreck a board by spreading a vrus through it, but I think we all can (and should) be adult enough to ingore stupid or inflammatory statements. Granted others disagree with me, which is fine (as are the discussions), but just as none of us has a right to post here, none of us have an obligation to remain either. If people want to discuss banning or just spout off about it, that's fine with me, but actions to ban someone could easily lead me to leave--after all, people are entitled to the type of board they want, including me.

[Scooter]

I appreciate your position, and anyone voting to ban a member would have to take into account that they would be pushing some other member(s) to leave. Just as those who say they would never vote to ban a member would have to take into account that by refusing to take action against someone, they would also be pushing some other member(s) to leave. Which, as we have just witnessed, has already happened.

[Big RR]

Exactly.

eta: And, FWIW, that's pretty much the way things should be--on issues like this there really isn't a middle ground, there will always be winners and losers.