• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Future of the Forum

Francesca R said:
Which again is consistent with my position. You simply disagree.
Click to expand...
Actually, your position, stated above, was that, "I guess I see it as the JREF (as in owner) sponsored the bans and sanctions--all of them were implemented and enforced at the foundation's behest."

What I just demonstrated (and you apparently agreed with) is that actually A) the JREF had nothing to do with choosing the mod team; B) that most of the forum rules were not dictated by the JREF, but rather put in place by the mod team themselves over time (this has been explained by Darat in a previous post); C) the JREF had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in choosing who would be banned, or who would not; D) a person who was banned could not appeal to the JREF, it was Darat who was the final arbiter.

So I fail to see how this fits with your claim that "all bans and sanctions were implemented and enforced at the foundation's behest". The JREF insisted on a few rules; the majority were not dictated by the JREF, and certainly were not enforced by the JREF.
 
All volunteer mods/admins are appointed by the JREF. They are there at the JREF's behest. A few days ago a demonstration was provided that this is the case when the forum was disconnected and then the functionality of mods/admins was temporarily curtailed. The JREF is (still) the accountable entity for all forum management actions.

No idea why you want to contest this. As above, it is the reason why I believe that lifting all disciplinary legacy is the most ethical policy if ownership transfers. (And particularly if content does not transfer with it).

Reasonable people can disagree with whether that is the ethical option of course.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
Actually, your position, stated above, was that, "I guess I see it as the JREF (as in owner) sponsored the bans and sanctions--all of them were implemented and enforced at the foundation's behest."

What I just demonstrated (and you apparently agreed with) is that actually A) the JREF had nothing to do with choosing the mod team; B) that most of the forum rules were not dictated by the JREF, but rather put in place by the mod team themselves over time (this has been explained by Darat in a previous post); C) the JREF had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in choosing who would be banned, or who would not; D) a person who was banned could not appeal to the JREF, it was Darat who was the final arbiter.

So I fail to see how this fits with your claim that "all bans and sanctions were implemented and enforced at the foundation's behest". The JREF insisted on a few rules; the majority were not dictated by the JREF, and certainly were not enforced by the JREF.
Click to expand...
OK, if the content in it's entirety transfers to the new entity, bans should also be retained.

If only some or none transfers, then all bets are off.
 
lionking said:
Agreed. Why the coyness about forum ownership, structure and goals?
Click to expand...


What is this "coyness" of which you speak?

Sometimes the information simply isn't there yet.

From what I've seen so far of this whole contretemps we (the gen. pop., as it were) have gotten about as much info as could be given while remaining accurate and not simply guessing.

It is an ongoing process. I think we've gotten what info we could get in about as timely a fashion as possible.
 
quadraginta said:
What is this "coyness" of which you speak?

Sometimes the information simply isn't there yet.

From what I've seen so far of this whole contretemps we (the gen. pop., as it were) have gotten about as much info as could be given while remaining accurate and not simply guessing.

It is an ongoing process. I think we've gotten what info we could get in about as timely a fashion as possible.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I have enough experience in organisational dynamics to believe that we, the common members, are being given the mushroom treatment.
 
Wolfman said:
Quick note -- from what I've seen of discussions from mods past and present, there are very few situations where the banning of a member was exclusively because of the JREF's rules, and not because the mod team themselves agreed that the person should be banned. The only exception to this that I'm aware of would be people who were insta-banned for things like threatening lawsuits.
Click to expand...


Yes.

To take it to a different level, nearly everyone who has been banned from here has fundamentally been banned for a failure to comply with mod direction.

Sure, that direction has been based on the existing rule set, but every forum member has agreed (at least in theory) to abide by that rule set AND moderator direction.

Since hardly anyone has ever been banned without a lengthy and usually more than tolerant effort by the mods to encourage compliance long before they are sent down the road it seems to me that they have demonstrated ... not an inability to follow any particular rule ... but rather to follow mod direction entirely.

Unless we are moving to a forum structure without moderation at all, or moderation without any teeth to it then there is no reason to believe that those same people will have suddenly developed an ability to respond to that direction.
 
lionking said:
Possibly. I have enough experience in organisational dynamics to believe that we, the common members, are being given the mushroom treatment.
Click to expand...


And my experiences with the same have taught me that in periods of confusion bad info is the easiest to obtain. This is why it is always a good idea to be careful with what statements are made.

Do you have any particular reason to believe that we are not being kept informed in as timely and accurately a fashion as is prudent?

What do you believe is being intentionally concealed from us? Why do you think they need to, or would bother?
 
quadraginta said:
What do you believe is being intentionally concealed from us? Why do you think they need to, or would bother?
Click to expand...

Given the disdain the JREF have treated the forum, I have no confidence that we are being kept informed.

Yeah, yeah I'm just a whinger...
 
Foolmewunz said:
I did not read that to include the area that I'm most concerned about... the new upper management and organizational structure. Some of us have been very direct on the topic and I think a rather large consensus would like to know that the new organization, in whatever form it takes, consists of a minimum of 2/3 of Jeff Wagg, Lisa Simpson, Darat.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what I intended but poorly conveyed, was that Jeff Wagg, Darat, et al.. cannot make their decision until the JREF has made theirs. Jeff said just that a couple of times way upthread. And icerat has said several times that he believes the all of the current admin/mod team will come along to a new forum, assuming setting up and migrating a new forum is the decision.

It may be wishful thinking, but my gut feeling is that JREF will say "migrate to a new forum" and lay out some migration ground rules that protect them legally (opt in by members, real names scrubbed, etc...) and perhaps even a plan to help keep incoming links intact or properly redirected. The forum will migrate with its current oversight structure entirely intact and hopefully Jeff will take on a senior leadership role. Then, once migrated and settled in, the leadership team will set about creating the new organization, electing a board, tweaking the member agreements, forum rules, creating by laws, etc..

But, it all hinges on the JREF's decision in a couple of days. Its still possible that decision will be "we're unplugging the server Wednesday at 7AM ET".
 
I would prefer that current bans be retained. It doesn't matter what the rules are - these people have demonstrated that they cannot follow them. There's no reason to believe that they would follow any rules on the new forum.

That said, given my stated predilection for second chances, it would be hypocritical of me to object, should amnesty for some or all banned members be considered.
 
arthwollipot said:
That said, given my stated predilection for second chances, it would be hypocritical of me to object, should amnesty for some or all banned members be considered.
Click to expand...

I'm all for second chances myself, too. But I think many of the banned had their second chances already. It may have been mentioned already, but the only new forum amnesty I feel would make sense would be wrapped around the removal of specific JREF-centric forum rules. If a former member was banned specifically for violating a rule that the new forum has decided to eliminate, then that former member might be considered for reinstatement.
 
arthwollipot said:
That said, given my stated predilection for second chances, it would be hypocritical of me to object, should amnesty for some or all banned members be considered.
Click to expand...

The problem is that everyone (outside of just massively out there cases like threats of violence or such, the sort of which don't really seem to be the point of contention) banned on this board were already given second chances. And third chances. And twelveth chance. You can only call it a "Second Chance" if you either ignore all their other chances or redefine them as something other then "chances."

They didn't learn from those. Why should yet another paradoxical "Second Chance" be any different?

The vast majority of banned people were already given multiple warnings, suspensions and then got banned. The banning didn't happen out of the blue in all but the most extreme of cases.

It seems that more often then not "Second chance" when used in the context of banned members is an odd demand to let people exist in a perpetual state of 'just one more' chance forever.

Sometimes your actions have permant consequences, consequences that don't go away even after you learned your lesson or changed your ways. That's what it means to be an adult. A ban, by its very definition, is permanent and you don't get a "Second Chance" at a permanent result of an action.
 
lionking said:
Possibly. I have enough experience in organisational dynamics to believe that we, the common members, are being given the mushroom treatment.
Click to expand...

Not by icerat nor me. Everything we know is out in the open. Obviously can't speak about the JREF.

The focus at the moment is

1) getting the forum onto better hardware to stabilize the current forum before it goes tits-up.
2) getting setup for a formal handover, this is still very nebulous as it depends on what the JREF decides at the end of the extended period they have for consultation.
 
abaddon said:
It's not about volume of data, it's about what that data is. If JREF feels they have no legal right to transfer it, they won't. If JREF believes that it's continued availability on the web constitutes an ongoing risk of litigation, they also won't.
Click to expand...

This morbid fear of litigation seems rather out of place for an organization that is bound to be controversial.

Were they once mugged by a lawyer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom