Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:37:05 -0500:
> Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it would appear that > a lot of people have the same perception as me, which is that Neddy saw > the potential of this thread to do exactly what has happened, and asked > for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain individuals decided to > respond anyways due to that being their nature, and they got banned. > Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do this "proctors are > out to get them" [] Agreed. I believe I responded to one post in the thread, an entirely favorable response I don't believe anyone will have an issue with, BTW, because it showed up higher in my thread list than did the "please don't post for 24-hours" proctors' request. Then I got to the proctor's request and felt a bit badly, that I had posted without yet seeing it. Had I been banned for 24-hours as a result, with a (probably form, given the number of folks it would apply to) response to the effect that everyone posting was getting it, I'd have certainly been frustrated, but would have understood (tho admittedly it might have taken me a fair bit of that 24 hours /to/ understand). Anyway, I think it has been 24-hours /now/, so I don't feel badly about posting again now... not that there was anything I felt strongly and clearly enough to post on in the interim. >> Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed. One such attempt was >> to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if someone is banned for >> 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be banned from all of >> our media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping the person from just >> moving "next door" and starting more problems. We've even seen it >> happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of with this list and >> the forums. >> <more snippage of good informations> > >> I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on this at the next >> Council meeting and we'll simply go from there. >> >> > Good to know that it will be discussed. Agreed. >From my perspective, I think the proctor thing is a good idea, and contrary to some, I'm /not/ of the opinion it has been deliberately used against certain people. The problem, and I remember many people saying so at the time, was that the idea wasn't subject to the usual time limit impositions that most proposals go thru. If it wasn't a response to the specific situation, and I'll trust Chris that it wasn't, it sure SEEMED like it was, and that it was rammed thru without proper debate and discussion. That's really sad, IMO, because what's happening is what I believe a lot of people could have predicted would happen, given the way it was rammed thru. What /was/ a great proposal in principle, ended up with a crappy implementation, without official public guidelines, with no way to answer allegations of favoritism (which were CERTAIN to come up) as a result of the lack of guidelines, perhaps with a bit of favoritism demonstrated, not deliberately, but /because/ of the same lack of guidelines... etc. If it was /not/ a response to the specific incident, why then the rush? Why was it rammed thru as if the continuance of time itself was at stake? Had it been done in the normal orderly way, the process itself would have taken care of these issues we are now dealing with, at least to the point there would have been some guidelines, some sort of answer that could be given referencing the official guidelines as to whether there was favoritism or not. Whatever. What's done is done, and we're living with the consequences. I'm glad to see the decision is going to be reexamined. As I stated above, I'm in favor of the idea. It's just the birth of it that wasn't right. Regardless of that, hopefully, our new baby isn't going to be thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'm honestly not sure it's possible now, but I'd love to see a proctor's project that could stand up with confidence and point not only to direct council authorization, but public guidelines also blessed by the council, so they could act with confidence, clear in the knowledge that they are within properly established guidelines, and that any challenge as to favoritism (deliberate or not) or the like can be met equally confidently. Perhaps this baby, "bastard" tho he might have started, will now be given the chance to grow into a mature and respected member of the community. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
