board77

Hal, your hearing (about which I know nothing but its cause) happened because you behaved in a way that could reasonably be considered as rude and disrespectful and was, without a doubt, highly disruptive. Because of the charter, you did not get summarily banned. Because of the charter, you got a jury that you helped to shape and that is trying to decide whether the charges are correct. The charter will limit the penalty they can give you if they do find the charges correct.

The charter is doing you a bunch of favors, Hal. You didn't get any of those favors on TORC or TORN. You did get silenced there.


Edit: To clarify

sorry, prim, that's not true. There is no case against me. All that I have done is done by people here every day. What has happened, however, is someone has decided they don't like that, and has used the charter to try and punish me. It's that simple.

Quote:

No sorry, you can't be as I am the worst procrastinator in the world. I'd so have you beat...not like that's anything to be proud of.

I will graciously yield the title to you.

halplm wrote:

sorry, prim, that's not true. There is no case against me. All that I have done is done my people here every day. What has happened, however, is someone has decided they don't like that, and has used the charter to try and punish me. It's that simple.

Sorry, I don't understand your post. "Done your people"?

sorry "done by people"

I see now.

Hal, I'm realizing that with a hearing in progress and as a temp Ranger I should not discuss this. I refer you to the thread you very bravely started in Turf.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

I think its a good idea to take care of the non-controversial stuff right away, so that the more difficult things can be tackled after the holidays, but I'd like to hear more from Fixer as to why he thinks even the non-controversial stuff should wait.

The point is now moot.

I will be less busy next week.

To anyone who saw my last post in here last night, sorry. The exchange between Holby and TM sparked in me a sudden, inexplicable need to rant. I should listen to my own advice to others about being completely calm when posting - it would remove the need to post at all, a lot of times. Not that I said anything really OTT or (I hope) too offensive, but it was needless and repetitive and not adding to good cheer.

In any case, I shall now take my own advice to myself in that post, and direct my posting efforts to those threads that make this board fun.

And...whee...heavy snowfall outside. *wanders off*

I think it's a good idea to get rid of the detailed instructions on exactly how to do things. For example, in our committee our hands were tied by having to follow exact procedures for structuring the vote. It would have been much easier to leave that up to the committee's discretion. It's impossible to predict every eventuality and the procedures should be a bit more flexible to accommodate this.

I agree, fisssh. As long as it's possible for an amendment to get a 67% supermajority, the structure of the vote should be whatever suits the question being asked. The principle of making sure that charter amendments have strong boardwide support is the important thing.

Quote:

That is to outline how to protect members from people who do not have respect for other members.

That is why I asked for the hearing. I voiced my opinion and my character and motivation were attacked as a result. That is not respect.

Quote:

There is no case against me. All that I have done is done by people here every day.

That is untrue. I can't think of another example of one poster relentlessly attacking another poster's character and motivation for days on end (and which you have done again in this thread.) If your statement were true, you'd be able to cite an example. There is none.

Quote:

What has happened, however, is someone has decided they don't like that, and has used the charter to try and punish me.

No, I did not like my character and motivation relentlessy attacked. I used the Charter to try and protect myself, as is my right as a member here.

Instead of giving detailed instructions on how to do committees I believe a set of guidelines should be written up, but not necessarily put into the Charter. Giving guidance instead of forced, rigid structure.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

I agree, fisssh. As long as it's possible for an amendment to get a 67% supermajority, the structure of the vote should be whatever suits the question being asked. The principle of making sure that charter amendments have strong boardwide support is the important thing.

That's the problem, Prim. I've been through two amendment processes now, and I was the first person to decry the fact that the Charter was so limiting in this area. But I have yet to see a proposal that in my opinion accomplishes this, other then presenting a yes or no choice on a single amendment.

Perhaps in the charter we could change it and give potential voting models and allow the specific committee to pick the one that suits that particular issue. Maybe one time an amendment might off not being strictly a yes or no, and the committee can pick a different type. I wouldn't see it to be a problem as long as the committee announces which voting model it will use and what percent is required.

Why does there have to be a supermajority at all?

Why do there have to be committees and complex rules for voting. Why not just have something along the lines of... If you want to change the charter, propose it, and have a vote. Majority decides.

This whole "process" is simply designed to make it hard to change... It's one thing for a country's constitution to be difficult to change, it's another for a message boards...

Because that is the way it has been handled in the past we are working on making things simpler but in order to do that hal we have to follow some sort of procedure.

And I'm saying that shouldn't be the procedure in the future.

For that matter, why have hearings and all that.

Why not have a set of principles peopel are supposed to abide by, have the rangers monitor things with respect to those principles and take action as necessary. And if someone objects to those actions, put the objection up to a simple vote for the board. People can make their case or not, and have people vote.

Dragging everything out through showing evidence and deliberating and all that just complicates things.

Okay so you are making a suggestion for the future, which is cool, but it doesn't change how we are going to procceed with this next committee. Hopefully by the end of this next committee the rules will be simplified and the voting process won't be so limiting. As for hearings, the jury is still out for me on that one.

As long as it's possible for an amendment to get a 67% supermajority,

That's the catch. Exactly.

There is only one voting form that allows you to set a supermajority as the criterion for acceptance/rejection, and that is the yes/no form.

(So, I see that we have started work on this but not in the Jury Room. Since we're obviously going to discuss this, would you guys mind moving to the Jury Room now where we have a thread and an agenda and can handle this using some kind of process?)

If we want to change the voting form on a charter amendment, what has to be changed is the 67% requirement.

We can certainly discuss this. There are pros and cons to doing it. But I don't want to hash it out here while pretending that we're not really talking about it.

hal, there are still three places on the committee. I wish for once you really would put your money where your mouth is instead of standing outside the circle and demeaning the long hours others have put into this endeavor.

Jn

People, I have turned on your Jury Room permissions.

Trust me that it is easier to focus and take a topic seriously if the committee is formally convened in the place created for that purpose. I've sat on enough boards that met in living rooms and had to move to conference rooms finally because people spent too much time petting the cat and not enough time paying attention to the agenda.

We have a cat?