Subject: Oh well.
Author:
Posted on: 2012-05-19 18:11:00 UTC
*sings* "You can't always get what you want..."
And I have a feeling any serious contention over this may very well explode into a philosophical debate from which there will be few survivors.
Overall, it looks pretty good.
So, some time ago, a discussion here on the Board led to the suggestion that the PPC Constitution needed updating. A few of us (hereafter the Anonymous Constitutional Convention, since I can't remember who exactly helped out) took a look at it, and hashed out a revised set of Articles designed to reflect the PPC as it exists today, including both Board and Chat as equal parts - but not writing rules specifically for the Chat, because they have many more.
One offshoot of this project was the Permission Self-Check, already posted. The other is this:
The Revised PPC Constitution
At present the Revised Constitution has been drafted, but (of course) remains unratified. So - members of the PPC, is this a Constitution you can support? Are there any problems with it - anything it says which is incorrect, anything which isn't in there which needs to be, any (gulp) actual mistakes?
(To anticipate a few questions: yes, it will be signable. No, this is not the final home of the Revised Constitution - it will probably live on the Wiki, with a version elsewhere as backup. Yes, asking where to find the original Constitution to compare it to will result in mocking - it's at the top of the Board. And no, no pie will be provided to ratifiers)
hS
I'd argue that Neshomeh and I did far more than just "approve". Certainly Neshomeh, at least.
Though I definitely don't agree with the insinuation that right and wrong don't exist. There are such things as wrong opinions (anyone remember that weird guy that totally misused the phrase "gallows humor"?).
The revisions have been made, the link at the top of the Board has been changed, and the Wiki has been altered. The Revised Constitution is now freely signable on the Wiki page - add your name to the bulletted list on that page, and the Definitive Version will be updated when I get to it.
hS
It isn't worth much but it's something.
No, I'm not dead. And this seems great! I'll sign it, even though I'm not around much right now.
It is awesome. And the pie is a lie? :P
Now I just have to remember to buy pie on my way home.
YAY! I get to sign it! SQUEE!
No pie? At least I have pi.
Although I, too find nothing wrong with the old Constitution, although by now the PPC is much bigger, a much bigger target for trolls, and a whole lot of other things involving bigness. Or largeness.
I can't see anything wrong with this new constitution. It seems to embody the spirit of the PPC community. I would also like to express my approval of hS's proposed edits, which fix the wiki editability issue (which I never noticed until it was pointed out to me).
Since, apparently, 'member' means 'anyone who hangs around here', I'd voice my own opinion and say that these changes are good, especially because they make the constitution clearer.
And I would be prepared to sign it, however there is one passage which causes me some concern, and that is the exact wording of Point 19.
It may just be that the term Mary Sue means different things to each of us, but I'm not sure why, if it's possible to remove the 'bad' from bad slash (creating good slash), it's not possible to remove the 'badly written' from a Mary Sue, thus creating a 'good' Sue.
The comment of 'good Mary-Sues' being a contradiction in terms would seem to ignore the existence of the Canonical Canon Sues, such as Drizzt and the rest: http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Canon_Sue
Given that it is acknowledged in the FAQ For Other People (about 2/3 of the way down) that the term 'Mary Sue' has come to mean different things to different people, and that the PPC has its own official definition, I also think it would be worth linking to the Mary Sue wiki page in the Constitution.
Well, although I understand and possibly agree with your concern, I'd like to find a better solution than linking to the Wiki - taking a semi-permanent document that's supposed to be Written In... Something for the PPC, and linking it to something that Anyone Can Edit strikes me as counter-productive.
Yeah, I see your point, and I think I can see good reasons both For and Against linking to the Wiki.
Now that I've thought about it some more, I think that I would actually be Against putting the Mary Sue link in there, if for no other reason than, as something that we're going to sign, having aspects of the Constitution be editable afterwards doesn't strike me as a good idea either.
The links that are in there already are more for helping newbies navigate around (such as the ones to the Wiki and the Original Series), and the specific pages linked, like the Permission one, seem unlikely to ever be as controversial as what exactly makes a Mary Sue. Also, trying to include all of the relevant details of something like the Permission article without just having the link to it, would probably end up making the Constitution a fairly unwieldy document.
Personally, I like the idea of updating the Constitution, because I think it is a great shame that new people currently can't add their name in support of it.
(Also, after re-reading my initial post, I think it seems rather abrupt. That wasn't my intention at all, and if it did seem rude to anyone, then I apologise.)
Excellent update to the original.
I approve of it.
...I'm cutting back with the sheep.
I assume my word will suffice, though.
I can find nothing wrong with it.
I have reminded myself and reminded myself to bring this up, but I kept frickin' forgetting:
What is the policy for what happens when rules are broken? 'Cause that should be in there, too.
The clearest thing we've got is that trolls will be mocked, but what about other stuff? I mean, in most cases rule-breaking will result in someone saying "Hey, you're breaking a rule, please stop," and the offender will go "Oh! Okay, sorry," but every so often someone will go "What? No I'm not. How could I possibly be breaking that rule when it specifically says 'fish' and I was doing 'crab,' which is not a fish at all." Or they'll go "Oh, okay, sorry," but then keep doing it.
So at what point do actual sanctions happen, and what should—heck, what can they be? Frankly, with the Board being un-modded, we don't have a lot to work with aside from gradual shunning. This tends to work, but it would be nice to be able to come out and say "No, you've gone too far now, and so [sanction happens]." That way it's clear, it's clean, it's over quickly. Also, supposing we have another case like Doctor Hello, it would be good not to have to count on them agreeing to go away because we ask them to.
Quick note to people who hate the suggestion of authority: I'm not proposing mods here. I'm proposing, in the absence of mods, that we all have some publicly known and agreed-upon recourse in the face of flagrant misbehavior.
~Neshomeh
Maybe if someone breaks a rule, they could be excluded from certain events?
For example: Sweater Guy gets upset with Crab Fish because Crab Fish is being rude. Sweater Guy starts being rude back, instead of responding appropriately. They get into an argument, and soon other boarders come in and tell them to knock it off. They do, but there's still needs to be a punishment so it wont happen again.
Sweater Guy has permission and goes on the chat often. Crab Fish goes on the chat, but doesn't have his permission yet.
So, maybe Crab Fish will have to wait another few weeks before trying to get permission, while Sweater Guy could be banned from the chat for a few days. Also, they might not be allowed to join in on any role plays or other events.
That doesn't make sense or is appropriate as a punishment, in either case.
For one, permission is something everyone should have the right to, if they actually meet the requirements. A one off incident should not remove their right to ask for permission.
For two, the PGs are not mods, weapons, tools, or cooking utensils to be used to be flung at people's heads in a violent way. (That said, someone who is repeatedly a terrible jerk before they get permission is probablyy not going to be permission because we do not need terrible jerks writing PPC missions because we try to minimize the 'the PPC is made up of terrible jerks' thing as far as the spin-offs go.)
For the third, if it took place on the board, why is SG being banned from the channel? If SG behaves normally pretty much all the time in the channel, does it make it fair to forcefully remove SG from the channel?
Fourth, we don't have RPs that often. And everyone is welcome to join in on those unless otherwise stated.
Fifth, events are permission only, if PPC-wise, and I understand what you mean correctly, so the other person couldn't take part anyways.
One episode may not warrant a punishment but if the person is a repeat offender and will not listen to people when they try to correct them, there should be some sort of punishment involved, at least in my opinion.
I'd like it set out that it is expected and encouraged that members of the community should speak up if someone is breaking a rule, and not leave it for "someone else" (which has tended to mean PGs more than it ought). So, something maybe in "On Engaging With Thy Peers," like:
XX. If you see someone breaking a rule, please ask them to stop and explain why. Be nice — they may not realize they're doing it. If they persist, you'll most likely have backup pretty quickly, and if it gets really bad and scary then mass shunning may occur.
If it's you breaking the rule, just stop, apologize, and don't do it again, and life will be easier for everyone.
- - - -
That's kinda how it works now, I think?
~Neshomeh
It is proposed...
FIRST, that in Article 19, the words and punctuation '— unlike good Mary-Sues, which is a contradiction in terms' be struck from the record.
SECOND, that a new Article be introduced, directly following Article 5, and referenced as Article 6, all further numbers being adjusted to follow.
THIRD, that the text of the new Article be as follows: 'The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If you see someone breaking any of the rules and guidelines herein, please ask them to stop - nicely: remember Article 4 - and explain why. If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up - and if it continues, a persistant rule-breaker is likely to be shunned or asked to leave the Board. (If you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back - Article 3 - and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun!)'
FOURTH, that the following text be added to current Article 18, after 'one floating around': 'In accordance with Article 6, if someone breaks this guideline a few times, be nice! You may have seen it a hundred times before, but they probably haven't.'
FIFTH, that the Wiki links at 'plagiarise' (Article 22) and 'Trolls' (Article 23) be removed, and parenthetical definitions be inserted in their place; OR that said definitions be added in addition to the Wiki links.
SIXTH, that pie be distributed to all ratifiers, provided they purchase it themselves from the store of their choice.
hS
I'm personally impartial to linking or not linking, but I can see giving brief definitions in the actual document for reasons of knowing what we signed, when we signed it.
And, for the lowest-priority opinion ever, I stopped spelling "Mary Sue" with a hyphen at some point because I noticed it's spelled without one in the original Star Trek parody, so I'd change it if it were up to me. Only mentioning it so I can stop wondering to myself whether I should or not. (There, brain, I did it. Nobody's gonna care. Leave me alone now.)
~Neshomeh
Especially the sixth one.
Google Docs is being a stupid again.
It looks good. Thanks for taking point on this hS. You did an excellent job of getting it set up and incorporating the various suggestions that the Anonymous Constitutional Convention had.
-Phobos
Even though pie would be nice.
I don't see anything wrong, and it is indeed an improvement over the original.
I'm going to sign it, if it passes.