Consistancy

Because it distracts from the question at hand. Make another thread if you want to discuss such matters.

Wait a second... I'm just reading this again...



Are you sure discussing one doesn't need the other? We can make up rules all day that sound good on paper, but not really think about it until the day comes when even more issues arise and people are wondering what's happened to the temple... and this has already happened many times.

So again, are you sure?

Proteus wrote: Wait a second... I'm just reading this again...

Warning: Spoiler!

Arisaig wrote: We're discussing the potential rules and otential additions or changes to them, not the perceived philisophical issues that could arise from implementing such rules.

Are you sure discussing one doesn't need the other? We can make up rules all day that sound good on paper, but not really think about it until the day comes when even more issues arise and people are wondering what's happened to the temple... and this has already happened many times.

So again, are you sure?

Yes, I am sure. These rules aren't a matter of being Jedi, but a matter of protecting an online community. The online world, as we all know, can be a toxic place and breeds toxic people. These rules are to protect this place from just becoming a new Reddit.

You want to reflect on the potential conflicts with these rules and being a Jedi, be my guest, but not in this thread.

Arisaig wrote:
The online world, as we all know, can be a toxic place and breeds toxic people. These rules are to protect this place from just becoming a new Reddit.

"Toxic" conveys a definitive state of damage to others. I prefer to think of these people as "fiery" people. Fire can be a great tool if applied correctly, and can be quite dangerous if left unchecked.

Thus, I understand why there is concern about "how" to control the fire from ravaging the place.

In my experience, the best way to extinguish fire: remove oxygen. A troll cannot troll if no one else participates.

As to the original point, Ros, I fear you are taking the usual approach of taking on even "more" work around TotJO. I am not your mother or anything to tell you to take breaks, but I am concerned that you (or anyone else trying to fill your shoes at any point) will experience heavy burnout.

Revoked, moving to my journal.

All in all, get back on topic. The rules, not whatever perceived philosophy one sees behind it. Defend Jediism, even from those that claim to follow it.

I'd like to let you all know that I am putting an artificial timeline on this of one week from the original post. This is so that the suggestions can be discussed and approved by Council and its final draft placed in the behavior unbecoming thread

I appreciate your work, Ros. Even if I disagree with you sometimes, you consistently show your concern for this community.

I am concerned about admin burnout though.

Arisaig wrote: All in all, get back on topic. The rules, not whatever perceived philosophy one sees behind it. Defend Jediism, even from those that claim to follow it.

Well, first of all, don't tell me what to do or not to do, a'ight? Now if you want your lawmakers or fellow citizens to not input their thoughts of the implications and especially problems with proposed rules, feel free to elect lawmakers that don't think what they are doing and move to a place where neither do the citizens. Until you have the power to weed out the thinkers on TOTJO, I'm afraid you are stuck with them.
My argument, for one, is a liberal one, not a Jedi one. I have yet to hear anyone else argue on the basis of the code or any other doctrinal point. Proteus expressed at most what he thinks may well be the root of the "problems" our lawmakers are trying to address here, which is of primary concern, wouldn't you agree, when it comes to the the question of how to deal with them.
As for defending Jediism... No. Jediism is not a person. It cannot be hurt. It needs no protection. It is difficult to make a liberal argument even in favour of protecting people, when none are under any threat. Ideas and ideologies, surely, mustn't be protected through dictate, but at best through argument. Still, I'll try my best and defend people - or better yet, liberty and the freedom to personal growth - from moral busy bodies who think it their duty to control through executive power others' attitudes beyond the directly recordable behaviour. If these high horse nobles fashion themselves Jedi while they're at it, that is of no concern to me. I'd object to what they do no matter what flag they fly doing it.

At the risk of not addressing the original question directly...

As we move forward into this week-long process, I submit a couple things for consideration:

One, that no matter how many policies we make, and no matter how consistent they seem to be, subjective judgment will always play a part in this process - and so will the cries of injustice from those who step on the wrong side of that judgment. Consistency in remediation won't change that. I think that we're much better, policy-wise, than we have ever been...but the pulse of issues that arise doesn't appear to be slowing.

Two, 'policy' does something for a couple parties - it ensures fairness for those subject to it, and it provides guidelines for those enforcing it - protecting THEM if done correctly. The downside to that: Sometimes policy does more to protect the moderators than it does to affect positive change in a system. Sometimes rather than taking responsibility for making a call, 'policy' takes the fall and acts as a poor straw man in lieu of submitting one's judgment to scrutiny. Whatever we come up with, we need to be aware of these pitfalls.

In short...no policy will ever supplant judgment. No judgment will ever satisfy or appease all. No appeasement will affect the system that is Temple of the Jedi Order in a long-term positive way.

My advice is to look at how you want to affect the Temple of the Jedi Order...and base whatever policy you make on that. Even if that makes mods and others in positions of responsibility the hammer at times. And when they act in that capacity...don't apologize for it. Back your people, back your play. Certainly learn from fallout and consequence, but also bear in mind that not everyone who has an opinion on your work also has the entire system at the center of the equation.

Gah. I wrote a well considered response and then I misclicked and lost it. I think these were the more salient points.

I left a thank you for those ideas that resonated most strongly with me before the discussion shifted to tangentially related matters.

One idea I didn't see discussed here yet is severity. It's all well and good to list infractions and an associated penalty but not all infractions are created equal. For an example from my offline world: if I detect a speeding driver there is an offence for that, but exceeding the speed limit by 10 is vastly different than exceeding it by 25 or 45 and the penalties reflect that. There may be issues of subjectivity introduced with a sliding scale of penalties, but overall I think it promotes a 'fairer' system.

As for how to handle suspensions/bannings and relate them back to the points system, here is a link of how 'demerit points' apply to driver licences here in "the nanny state".

This system, while not infallible, allows for individuals to regulate their own behaviour in accordance with clearly defined rules by reminding them (through demerit points) that there are consequences. There are multiple escalating stages before privileges are removed, however once the thresholds are reached action is swift and clearly defined. It may seem counter-intuitive to discuss driver licences in the context of forum suspensions, but the correlation is a defined set of principles surrounding the granting or removal of privileges (be they driving or posting).

I think that any policy or rules developed do need to consider concepts of natural justice: such as the right to be informed of the specific nature of any allegations against you before a determination of guilt is made, a presumption of innocence, a right of reply or appeal and the availability of an advocate (particularly for less eloquent members, those for whom English is not their first language, or those who have a 'history' with anyone adjudicating the issue.

As has been mentioned though, we need to be mindful that we are not forcing our moderators and security officers into a position of opposition to the membership or creating a police state, else no one will be inclined to log on to regulate the system.

Ideally, we will each reflect on why we came here in the first place and, before clicking submit, consider whether our words contribute to our 'why' or detract from it. To borrow from Steven Covey's 7 Habits, we ought "seek first to understand, then to be understood".
[/sanctimony]