Editing Rights Question

Avalon wrote: In case it got missed

Added additional emphasis for the part that probably needs the most consideration based on what I've observed the last few months.

Avalon wrote: I would also like to point out that situations like this can be avoided and minimized by the establishment of and respect towards a clear line of duties, responsibilities, and rights to the leadership roles of the site, by all members of leadership and consequences therein...

Maybe something to consider discussing in that whole Pax Templi thing you guys are working on behind the scenes or something similar.

I agree that all leadership should be held accountable and there should always be consequences for actions that break the rules, but I think a lot of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the bylaws that actually govern how our Council works. Despite popular opinion, this is not a democracy. It is a 501c3 charity and church governed by the laws of Texas and the United States. It isn't so simple as "holding people accountable" and having "consequences". We cannot simply remove or vote out officers the way many think. Our bylaws are written as required to maintain our legal status, and they have to be followed.

Because of this, sometimes certain rules and procedures do not apply to certain offices. As V.P. of Membership Affairs, MadHatter has the authority to ban people from the site forever. That doesn't mean he can do it with impunity and other Councillors can question that action. As a Site Administrator, ren has certain authority and access that other Councillors do not. We can still check and balance his actions, but there are also decisions he can make to protect the security and integrity of this site without our approval. Br. John is not simply a Councillor, but also the President of our Board of Directors as a charity. His duties include being the Chief Secular Operations Officer of the corporation and he deals with legal affairs and keeping the corporation legal under Texas and Federal law. He files the reports with the state. The President also concerns himself with the structure of our Temple. He is also the Treasurer. If he acts in a way that other Councillors disagree with, we discuss these actions as a group. Sometimes it is something we can vote on such as reversing a moderator action, and sometimes it is not something we can overturn based on the bylaws as they exist now. It can get very complicated, but in my time as a Councillor, I have seen Br. John be willing to consider the voices of other Councillors and also accept votes that he was on the losing side of.

The point of this post is not to point at fingers at people, but to remind everyone that this is more than just an internet forum. There are legal ramifications to everything we do here. There are rules we have to follow, many of which require a lawyer to help us navigate and understand. Those gears move slowly and deliberately. The best way to effect real change is to get involved on a more intimate level. Do what you can to learn everything you can about how our policies and bylaws actually come to be and how they can be changed. Volunteer to assist officers with finding solutions or alternatives.

I hate to put a spotlight on the train wreck that is current U.S. politics, but there is a parallel. Much like this Temple, the representative republic we call the United States of America only functions properly when it's citizens are actively engaged and involved in their own governance. If things were as simple as defining roles and then holding all leaders accountable, we wouldn't have the daily circus that we currently have in our White House. If we don't want circus antics in our Council, let's work together to identify how we change the culture together.

Hey Zenchi, Connor can get lost and stay lost. He contributes nothing here and threw away being a Knight and a Minister. He will never have that rank here or be clergy here again. Problem solved.

Start your own Order and do it the right way. All of this crap in this thread is over an issue that our rules say is to be attempted to resolve by PM. Yes it is grandstanding. If anyone has a moderation complaint they will first PM the moderator, and if that does not resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction then they should contact any member of The Council.

Br. John wrote: Hey Zenchi, Connor can get lost and stay lost. He contributes nothing here and threw away being a Knight and a Minister. He will never have that rank here or be clergy here again. Problem solved.

No one mentioned Connor, so I'm wondering as to the relevance of this statement, and question if that mentality is the mentality of a Jedi. First looking for a problem where none was, and then giving up on a student like that...

But alas, off topic.

Arisaig wrote:

Br. John wrote: Hey Zenchi, Connor can get lost and stay lost. He contributes nothing here and threw away being a Knight and a Minister. He will never have that rank here or be clergy here again. Problem solved.

No one mentioned Connor, so I'm wondering as to the relevance of this statement, and question if that mentality is the mentality of a Jedi. First looking for a problem where none was, and then giving up on a student like that...

But alas, off topic.

Which is why we discourage quoting or bringing PM conversations into the public forum. I am guilty of this too and I shouldn't have mentioned anything about it. This whole thread should've been a PM between two people to begin with, so let's all try to remember to discuss the issue of which officers have rights to edit what and why rather than discussing individuals.

Connor's PM was mentioned. Once someone decides to make a private message public, it's fair game.

Br. John wrote: Connor's PM was mentioned. Once someone decides to make a private message public, it's fair game.

No name was mentioned. So either you're going into private PM's for the purpose of personal gain (abuse of power) and to skirt around the original issue, or you're stuck with the chance this was not Connor's message, in which case you've given up on a former student, and in that case my original statement still stands.