Subject: Re: Okay: Proposed Constitutional Amendments
Author:
Posted on: 2014-03-11 23:30:00 UTC
I think those sound good. I don't have anything constructive to say on the one phrase.
-
A reminder by
on 2014-03-09 14:02:00 UTC
Reply
I hereby remind all newbies (and anyone else who needs their memory refreshed) that we should try to keep badfic reports to a single thread until it falls of the first page, OK?
-Des, who is totally not stockpiling penguins -
Some Constitutional Comments. by
on 2014-03-10 10:20:00 UTC
Reply
-This is actually in the Constitution, sort of. Article 22 reads as follows:
22. Also feel free to share links to badfics you find, if you think they’re worth telling us about. Sometimes we need a good laugh, sometimes we want to offer constructive criticism, sometimes we need something to kill for a mission. Not all badfic needs to be mentioned by itself, though — you can just post it directly to the List of Unclaimed Badfic, or add it to an already existing badfic thread on the Board. (And if you’re replying to a badfic plug, or reviewing it, remember Rule 3!)
And if anyone thinks that needs making more explicit, we can convert this thread to discussing possible changes (there or elsewhere). Also, the Constitution is bloomin' huge these days, and if we did have such a thread, I'd be agitating to shorten the blasted thing.
-But (and it's a big but) it's hardly an epidemic right now. We have this thread, and then five threads down, this thread which failed utterly. Then you're into the Shipfest and no-one wants to scroll past that.
There's also this thread, in between, which, yes, should have been tacked onto the thread posted an hour before it. But... yeah, not really epidemic. I'm guessing you're posting prompted by events longer ago than the past week, yes?
Dropping back to the Constitution, I wonder if #22 isn't both too restrictive and too vague. We might want something more like this:
22. The PPC has always been about badfic, so feel free to talk about that, and post links if you find something you think is worth sharing. That said, we don't want badfic threads to overwhelm the Board, so if there's a thread about badfic on [the top half of] the front page already, please add to that rather than starting your own. (And when replying to a thread about badfic, or reviewing a badfic, please remember Article 3!)
That version is both more inclusive (discussion about badfic), and more explicit (put it in an old thread, not 'you can'). So what does anyone think?
hS -
I've remembered why we didn't do this. by
on 2014-03-10 15:09:00 UTC
Reply
Article 4:
4. People engaged in any violation of the Constitution, particularly Articles 1 & 2 will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise. Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance. Giving someone a chance means informing them their behavior is wrong or unwanted according to our Constitution and why, as per Article 9.
And Article 9:
9. 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 (politely- remember Article 7!) and explain why. If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up - and if it continues, a persistent rule-breaker should be shunned or asked to leave. (If you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun!)
Having a rule which explicitly states that badfics should be confined to one thread opens up the possibility of someone being told to leave the Board because they forget to do so - in fact, it would make it a possible response if they do it twice, only.
We've had people on the Board in the past who would have done that - not officially, but if you glare at a person and imply they should leave often enough, they do. I've seen it happen. I don't want it to happen again.
So... punishment and sanctions. I believe that everyone on the Board is capable of following the rules, and that lapses should be reminded, not reprimanded. Someone who is actively out to cause trouble can and will be blocked. If we're reworking this thing, I think we need to say that: a) breaking the Constitution without malign intent happens, and everyone has the responsibility to remind you when you do - with no hard feelings. b) Long-term, low-level deliberate violations or 'forgetting' may result in you being asked to shape up or leave. c) Deliberate malevolence (ie, violation of Articles 1-3) may result in (up to) 'apologise and stop, or be blocked'.
I also think we need some sort of protection for people falsely or mistakenly accused. The following situation (heavily anonymised and modified) has occurred:
Oaken Thorinshield: I think this movie sucks.
Lacksidacksical: Oaken, you are so right!
Oaken Thorinshield: Don't use that word, you scumbag. Apologise now.
Lacksidacksical: What word? I don't understand. I'm sorry if I upset you, all right?
Oaken Thorinshield: Apologise for saying That Word, or leave the Board, swine!
Lacksidacksical: I have no idea what's going on, but I'm still sorry something's offended you. Are we all right now?
Summertide: Due to your callous disregard for Oaken's feelings in continuing to use the word 'right' when everyone knows she hates that word because of what happened to her r*ght hand, Oaken has now left the PPC. You should be shot for this.
Now, we can't ask Oaken not to be upset - she was very attached to that hand - and asking her to calm down and stop insulting Lacksi probably wouldn't go very well... but equally, having her and Summertide demanding Lacksi apologise for something she's not even sure she did or be banned would be a perversion of everything the Constitution stands for.
You can create your own analogous situations which are less ridiculous (if 464646 says something in all innocence which OlderThanThou takes as an insult, should 464646 apologise for insulting OTT, when she never did so?), but the situation needs considering, at least.
hS -
Okay: Proposed Constitutional Amendments by
on 2014-03-11 11:28:00 UTC
Reply
Two of them, one much bigger than the other. Since we already have a First Amendment, I guess that makes these:
The Second Amendment, or, the Badfic Amendment
Current text:
21. Feel free to shamelessly plug stories, websites, or anything else to your heart’s content, if you think they’ll be of interest to the PPC in general. We’re in dire need of entertainment and good fanfic.
22. Also feel free to share links to badfics you find, if you think they’re worth telling us about. Sometimes we need a good laugh, sometimes we want to offer constructive criticism, sometimes we need something to kill for a mission. Not all badfic needs to be mentioned by itself, though — you can just post it directly to the List of Unclaimed Badfic, or add it to an already existing badfic thread on the Board. (And if you’re replying to a badfic plug, or reviewing it, remember Rule 3!)
23. The Board in particular is a fairly small space for the number of people we have, so before you post, see if someone else is already talking about your pet topic. Got a fic you want to plug? Add it on to an already-extant badfic or goodfic thread — there’s usually one floating around. In accordance with Article 9, if someone breaks this guideline a few times, be nice! You may have seen it a hundred times before, but they probably haven't.
Proposed Amendment:
21. Feel free to shamelessly plug stories, websites, or anything else to your heart’s content, if you think they’ll be of interest to the PPC in general. We’re in dire need of entertainment and good fanfic. Before you post, though, see if someone else is already talking about your preferred topic - no-one will object if you add to a relevant thread instead of starting your own (in fact, we often prefer it)!
22. The PPC has always been about having a good laugh at badfic, so feel free to talk about it, and post links if you find something you think is worth sharing. That said, we don't want badfic threads to overwhelm the Board, so if there's a thread about badfic on the top half of the front page already, please add to that rather than starting your own. (And when replying to a thread about badfic, or reviewing a badfic, please remember Article 3!)
Explanation:
This is a consolidation, clarification, and expansion amendment. It consolidates 3 articles into 2, clarifies the times when you should add to an old thread, and expands 'badfic threads' to include 'threads about badfic'. Overall, a fairly minor change.
Unlike this:
The Third Amendment, or, the Dispute Resolution Amendment
Link:
The Third Amendment. It covers Articles 1-10, though the document includes the rest of the Constitution as well, in order to update the numbering.
Explanation:
The Dispute Amendment is a major restructuring (again) of the first part of the Constitution. In summary, I've tried to:
-Separate dispute resolution out from the rules you can actually break.
-Clarify the treatment of people you accuse of breaking the rules - ie, don't flame, give them an actual chance. It was already in there, but this I think is clearer.
-Expand on the responsibilities of the community. Instead of 'If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up', the Amendment states, 'any and all uninvolved community members have a responsibility to back up the person who is in the right, or to defuse an unclear situation.'.
-Clarify the way to react to misunderstandings.
-Highlight that ignoring an apology or valid explanation is a form of persecution.
Controversial changes:
Most of what I've done is rewording and reshuffling, but there are a few pieces that might be controversial:
-I have stated that, ' It is never wrong to ask a third party to comment on a dispute - but try to find someone uninvolved; you want an honest comment, not just someone to say you’re right.' I think it's important, if badly-phrased, but do we rather want people to look first for someone who can convince the other person they're wrong?
-'8. Wilful ignorance is not an excuse. If someone is ignoring the Constitution and claiming that they’re not really doing anything wrong - despite explanations to the contrary - that may constitute using up their chance. However, wilful ignorance on the part of the accuser is also not an excuse. If someone clarifies a genuine misunderstanding, continuing to push for an apology may count as persecution on your part.' This is the new 'wilful ignorance' clause. Are we happy with saying that repeatedly claiming you don't know what you've done wrong (in face of explanations) is no defence? And are we happy with the final sentence (with emphasis on 'may')?
-Related to the above, Article 5 now states: 'Equally, if there has been an honest misunderstanding, accept the mistake and move on. Apologies for making a mistake, and for being unclear, are recommended, but should not be demanded.'. If the latter point above is unwanted, how should this be changed?
-'if you find yourself being harassed or bullied by another PPCer, please make the community aware!' Are we happy with this? Do we want to clarify how you should do so?
I suspect the Badfic Amendment will be relatively uncontroversial, so unless anyone objects to it, I intend to insert it when there's a fair number of replies here. The Dispute Resolution Amendment, however, I will keep in the works until we have a satisfactory version.
Please comment. Like the thing says, all opinions are welcome - and important!
hS -
Third Amendment not adopted at this time. by
on 2014-03-21 16:34:00 UTC
Reply
I don't feel comfortable adding it with only six ratifiers. It has, however, been added to the 'Amendments' section as an unadopted Amendment; I may re-propose it at some point.
hS -
The Second Amendment is now live. by
on 2014-03-14 11:29:00 UTC
Reply
I'll add it to the Wiki tonight, unless someone else wants to do it.
hS -
My take on the amendments. by
on 2014-03-13 03:16:00 UTC
Reply
I support the Second Amendment; it does its purpose.
As for the Third Amendment, it does its purpose well. However, a few edits are needed:
In new Article 7: "... a chance to stop, explain, and/or apologise"
In Article 11: "Thou shalt makeththyselfyourselveslegible.
Other than that, I find no problem with it. A clear constitution is an easily-followed constitution. -
Typos fixed. by
on 2014-03-13 15:29:00 UTC
Reply
Thank you! I think 7 was supposed to say 'stop and apologise or explain', but this clarifies that 'stop' is the first step regardless, and opens the possibility of both an explanation and an apology.
hS -
I think you deleted too much... by
on 2014-03-13 15:50:00 UTC
Reply
namely, the "e" in "maketh": that "e" still needs to be there, as I'm pretty sure "mak" is not a word (or, in any case, not the word we need).
-
You makking mak, how can you mak that? by
on 2014-03-13 16:01:00 UTC
Reply
... no, you're right, not a word. e goes on, e goes off...
hS -
Hang on, you cheeky beggar. by
on 2014-03-13 16:02:00 UTC
Reply
'e' has a line through it - you can't tell if it's struck through or not. Hmph.
hS -
The line was too thick, by
on 2014-03-13 23:08:00 UTC
Reply
as well as connected to the rest of the strikethrough. It's
easyto see, like that. -
I support this, inclusive Articles 5 and 8. by
on 2014-03-12 11:25:00 UTC
Reply
Article 10:
"you want an honest comment, not just someone to say you’re right."
I don’t know how to phrase this better, and no, we don’t "want people to look first for someone who can convince the other person they're wrong" with a non-honest comment; "honest" trumps "able to convince the other", even if we find ourselves being convinced, by an honest commenter, that we are wrong.
Article 9:
"... if you find yourself being harassed or bullied by another PPCer, please make the community aware!"
A hint on how to do so may be helpful.
HG -
On Article 9: any ideas? by
on 2014-03-12 11:44:00 UTC
Reply
My main problem is that the two parts of the community have totally different ways of operating. If you're on the IRC, and someone's hassling you, you can straight up discuss it on there (I guess). If you're on the Board, do we want people starting a thread to say it? I don't know; we might, actually. Thoughts? Anyone? I'm not trying to write this whole thing myself, you know.
hS -
Sounds Lgical. I Support It. (nm) (nm) by
on 2014-03-12 00:29:00 UTC
Reply
-
Re: Okay: Proposed Constitutional Amendments by
on 2014-03-11 23:30:00 UTC
Reply
I think those sound good. I don't have anything constructive to say on the one phrase.
-
I support this! by
on 2014-03-11 19:17:00 UTC
Reply
(And, unfortunately, don't have anything constructive to say about about it.)
-Aila -
I will probably have suggestions... by
on 2014-03-11 16:17:00 UTC
Reply
... when there are no longer people working on my roof. It's pretty loud and annoying around here right now, so not the best time to be discussing a serious topic. >.
~Neshomeh -
SUPPORT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! (nm) by
on 2014-03-11 13:47:00 UTC
Reply
-
How would we prove "deliberate malevolence"? (nm) by
on 2014-03-11 03:48:00 UTC
Reply
-
Sounds like a good idea. by
on 2014-03-10 14:55:00 UTC
Reply
I especially like the shift to encouraging discussion of badfic rather than just linking to badfic.
I'm not sure we're "about badfic," though. Maybe "about having a good laugh at badfic" instead? I'd like to see more of that, less taking it very seriously all the time. I mean, we all know it can't really hurt us even though it can make us mad sometimes, right? Hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth is just part of the fun, right...? Sometimes I'm not sure.
~Neshomeh -
Looks good to me (nm) by
on 2014-03-10 14:36:00 UTC
Reply
-
Yes, make it more assertive. (nm) by
on 2014-03-10 12:55:00 UTC
Reply
-
I approve this edit. (nm) by
on 2014-03-10 11:42:00 UTC
Reply
-
Understood. by
on 2014-03-10 09:37:00 UTC
Reply
Oh, and give me a penguin. X-P
-Kitty, who is definitely not stealing from Des's stockpile.