Board of Directors/Minutes/20090926/Transcript
From The Otherkin Community
| Meeting Transcript |
| This is a transcript of a meeting. Portions may have been altered or removed to protect the privacy of members and remove material that does not pertain to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Bylaw Amendment
18:32 <@Clodaus> Okay :)
18:32 <@Clodaus> Well we can get one quick thing out of the way right now
18:32 <@Clodaus> Our bylaws state that amendments must be voted upon 10 days after it's provided in writing
18:32 <@Clodaus> Which I forgot about
18:33 <@Nanara> o.o ohhhh
18:33 <@Clodaus> So, we can vote now ;)
18:33 <@Nanara> ok
18:33 <@Clodaus> heh
18:33 <@Wraith> ..Ah.
18:33 <@Clodaus> It's been 14
18:33 <@Clodaus> Everyone still okay with meetings every 4 months?
18:33 <@Wraith> Thank gods we don't run the american economy
18:33 <@Clodaus> lol
18:33 <@Wraith> Oh wait....
18:34 <@Nanara> yep
18:34 <@Nanara> XD
18:34 <@Clodaus> Oh wait? :P
18:34 <@Wraith> So. Now what?
18:34 <@Clodaus> You never actually gave your vote just now, Wraith.
18:35 <@Nanara> ok, so yes vote on the meeting every 4months
18:35 <@Wraith> I vote yes.
18:35 <@Wraith> the end.
18:35 <@Clodaus> I vote yes as well
18:35 <@Clodaus> Okay
18:35 <@Clodaus> so
18:35 <@Clodaus> That's that, I'll amend it this weekend
18:35 <@Clodaus> Or Monday
18:35 <@Clodaus> Whichever comes first
18:35 <@Clodaus> Time's a bit odd where I am
18:35 <@Wraith> O o
18:35 <@Wraith> It sounds as such.
18:35 <@Nanara> lol do you need to be poked? *gets out her clody poking stick*
18:36 <@Clodaus> heh, for many things I'm sure, but I'll remember this :)
18:36 <@Clodaus> Just need to not be lazy
18:36 <@Wraith> Poke him anyways.
18:36 <@Clodaus> And just to recap, http://otherkincommunity.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors/Minutes/20090912
18:36 <@Nanara> hey.. it's nearly midday for me and my brain is telling me that it's only 10.30am! time is weird here too XD
18:36 <@Clodaus> Those are last meeting's minutes, in the event anything needs to be re-discussed
18:36 <@Nanara> um.. weren't we going to do the rule amendments today?
18:36 <@Wraith> yes
18:36 <@Clodaus> Yep
18:36 <@Clodaus> Just making sure everything else is in order first
18:37 <@Wraith> Fair enough.
18:37 <@Clodaus> http://otherkincommunity.net/topic2182 [ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO MODERATORS]
18:37 <@Clodaus> Those are the updated rules that are STILL not up
18:38 <@Clodaus> Because I'm an idiot
18:38 <@Clodaus> So we can work off of those
18:38 <@Wraith> we forgive you, Clodaus. We just need to get it done.
18:38 <@Clodaus> Wraith volunteers to get it done. Moving on...
18:38 <@Clodaus> (kidding)
18:39 * Wraith sighs.
[edit] Posting of Meeting Transcripts
18:45 <@Clodaus> I brought up in the Director forums last time the possibility of posting chat logs
18:45 <@Clodaus> Does anyone have any objections to posting logs of Board meetings so long as all personal and irrelevant information is removed?
18:45 <@Clodaus> And the log can be posted before it's made public so all directors can review
18:46 <@Wraith> Yes; in fact, that seems an excellent idea to have all meeting logs posted/
18:46 <@Clodaus> Oh, excellent
18:47 <@Wraith> Personal stuff removed, I think it's brilliant.
18:47 <@Clodaus> If you haven't read it, my reasoning is in the thread in the Director forums
18:47 <@Clodaus> I'm going to be the poor asshole that has to go through the entire thing too
18:48 <@Clodaus> So go ahead, make my day miserable by talking about your life
18:48 <@Clodaus> That would be an excellent quote in many other contexts..
18:48 <@Wraith> ....Wow, you are a master at grinding the serrated blade down further into my internal organs.
18:48 <@Wraith> verbally, that is
18:48 <@Clodaus> lol
18:48 <@Clodaus> You know I didn't mean it like that
18:48 <@Wraith> ...oh. Well, then
18:55 <@Nanara> [...] I'm cool with posting the chat logs for our meetings
18:55 <@Clodaus> great :)
18:55 <@Nanara> though I do think we should talk to the mods before posting modmeeting logs
18:55 <@Wraith> Yes. Especially since there is a lot of discussion regarding specific members
18:55 <@Clodaus> Yeah, that'll be a whole different area..we can bring that up in the mod forums
18:55 <@Clodaus> I'll post my arguments
18:55 <@Nanara> *nods*
18:56 <@Nanara> maybe just the logs for mod meetings about big decisions.. like.. everything but the member moderation?
18:57 <@Clodaus> That's fine with me
18:57 <@Wraith> Well, that would be a strong form of editing official information.
18:57 <@Wraith> ....oooor not
18:57 <@Clodaus> I mostly want logs on projects, like research project for example
18:57 <@Clodaus> Well, moderation is a touchy topic in its own
18:57 <@Wraith> ah, so specific logs, not the whole shebang
18:57 <@Nanara> .. if the damn thing gets off the damn ground...
18:57 <@Clodaus> We keep the mod forums private for a reason
18:57 <@Wraith> indeed.
18:58 <@Nanara> well... I don't think it's fair to publicise moderating specific members.. it's kind of not fair on the member who gets moderated...
18:58 <@Wraith> That's what I meant.
18:58 <@Wraith> But if it's just for specific projects, I don't see a problem with running it by the mods.
18:58 <@Wraith> It would be a handy tool to have.
18:58 <@Clodaus> And for decisions on general moderating procedure
18:58 <@Clodaus> So the other members can see how and why we come to decisions
18:59 <@Nanara> *nods*
18:59 <@Wraith> That's one way to stop... shall we say, disagreements
18:59 <@Nanara> so non-personal stuff in logs.. thats good :3
18:59 <@Clodaus> "stfu and read the 90,000 page chat logs"
18:59 <@Nanara> XD
18:59 <@Wraith> YES
18:59 <@Wraith> Ahem.
18:59 <@Wraith> So, all in favor?
18:59 <@Clodaus> Yep
18:59 <@Wraith> I vote affirmative
18:59 <@Nanara> Ai!
19:00 <@Clodaus> Alright :)
19:00 <@Clodaus> Then, everyone open up the handbook and please turn to page 10.
19:00 * Wraith does so.
19:00 <@Nanara> *twitch*
[edit] Rules & Regulations
[edit] Harassment Policy
19:00 <@Clodaus> We're only worried about the rules atm. The rest is irrelevant and won't be posted
19:01 <@Clodaus> Page 5 has the acronyms
19:01 <@Nanara> downloading it now :3
19:01 <@Clodaus> acronyms*
19:01 <@Wraith> you spelled it right the first time?
19:01 <@Clodaus> oh. oops
19:02 <@Nanara> ok, page ten...
19:02 <@Clodaus> In the last meeting, we had a problem with the warning procedure
19:02 <@Clodaus> How many warnings to be given, etc
19:03 <@Clodaus> and moderation of trolls
19:03 <@Clodaus> Though I really do not want to do this, we probably need to go through each rule and see if it should be modified
19:03 <@Nanara> yeah, a majority of the mods had concerns about having to go through the three strikes and your out with obvious and abusive trolls
19:03 <@Clodaus> THen determine how to moderate it
19:04 <@Nanara> -.-
19:04 <@Clodaus> If we're not worried about the verbage, we can just go over the rule in general
19:04 <@Clodaus> This is not going to be a final draft
19:04 <@Wraith> i love how no one wants to be here.
19:04 <@Clodaus> haha
19:04 <@Wraith> Ah; good, general is good
19:04 <@Clodaus> Alright
19:05 <@Nanara> well, wasn't the problem more about different procedures for different members
19:05 <@Nanara> ?
19:05 <@Clodaus> Just a quick recap from the minutes of last meeting:
19:05 <@Clodaus> (yes)
19:05 <@Clodaus> The main argument was that such users may be able to cause "harm" to the Community during the duration that they are under the same moderation as everyone else. The suggestion was that moderators should be more strict on those that are clearly trolls, as there's no benefit to allowing them to post if they have nothing positive to contribute.
19:05 <@Clodaus> The main argument against such was that the existing Rules & Regulations, if applied properly, work equally as well on "trolls" as they do on all other members.
19:05 <@Clodaus> Ultimately, the staff was unable to agree upon a solution to the problem. It was instead suggested that, rather than making an exception, the Rules & Regulations should be phrased in such a way that the concepts behind moderation are applied to cover that situation equally for everyone. The idea of a "troll" should be left out of it, as it is irrelevant. The acts are the only thing that should be moderated. This will be discussed during the ...
19:05 <@Clodaus> ... meeting on September 27th meeting. [THIS MEETING]
19:05 <@Clodaus> ..extra "meeting"
19:05 <@Wraith> give us time to read this, thank you.
19:05 <@Clodaus> (I'm done)
19:07 <@Nanara> my thought was that perhaps we can figure out a quicker way of solving this problem ... quicker than going through every single fraking rule and rehashing it... I mean.. as wraithy said.. none of us really want to be doing this right now
19:07 <@Nanara> so I was thinking perhaps there's a quicker way of doing it?
19:07 <@Clodaus> If we can think of a quick solution that isn't cutting corners, that's fine
19:08 <@Clodaus> I just don't want our policies to be influenced by our not wanting to be here
19:08 <@Wraith> Okay, skimming these over, it appears "trolling" is not listed as a legitimate offense
19:09 <@Clodaus> You're correct
19:09 <@Wraith> Could "trolling" be listed as an offense with harsher penalities?
19:09 <@Clodaus> It's never been taken into account, because I originally saw it as fitting under the existing set of rules (trolling is in some way a violation of the existing rules).
19:09 <@Clodaus> Well, how would we define trolling?
19:10 <@Nanara> hrm.. my definitions of trolling involve intent, which we can't prove
19:10 <@Nanara> hrm
19:10 <@Clodaus> Attent can be made apparent, but it can be easily confused with something else
19:10 <@Wraith> deliberate and aggressive action in order to provoke members and/or policies?
19:10 <@Clodaus> Intent*
19:11 <@Clodaus> If that's the definition, though, then it's already covered under our existing rules
19:11 <@Nanara> "Simply because someone is here for negative reasons does not give the
19:11 <@Nanara> member a right to violate our rules."
19:11 <@Clodaus> Just a very general rule - respect
19:11 <@Clodaus> Which we may need to be more specific on
19:11 <@Wraith> yes.
19:12 <@Nanara> maybe it's our interpretation of the rules that's the problem.. I mean.. the R&Rs have enough scope to jump on a troll
19:12 <@Clodaus> Well we can look at it two ways: (a) we need a new rule or (b) we can refine an existing one
19:12 <@Clodaus> 1.1.5 - No harassment
19:12 <@Clodaus> That covers that definition of trolling
19:12 <@Nanara> isn't harassment about harassing one person though?
19:13 <@Nanara> not harassing the community itself?
19:13 <@Clodaus> It's harassment either way...let me look at the language...to se what it implies
19:13 <@Wraith> That is a very general definition, though. It could be taken many ways
19:14 <@Clodaus> Community moderators will make every effort to ensure all members
19:14 <@Clodaus> feel safe and at home within the Community. If a member is harassing
19:14 <@Clodaus> you or making you feel uncomfortable in any way, please contact a
19:14 <@Clodaus> community moderator. (TOS 1f)
19:14 <@Wraith> "if a member is harrassing you" - that implies a one on one harrassment
19:14 <@Nanara> (also... picky editor note.. technically our use of the word "racism" in the rules is actually "bigotry")
19:14 <@Clodaus> That is all the exsiting rule states
19:14 <@Nanara> *nods*
19:14 <@Clodaus> I'll note that for discussion, 'Ara
19:14 <@Nanara> maybe that's the rule that needs an amendment?
19:14 <@Wraith> again, I repeat "if a member is harrassing you" implies a one on one deal
19:15 <@Wraith> So, I'd encourage amending
19:15 <@Clodaus> Alright
19:15 <@Clodaus> Let's throw some idea out
19:15 <@Clodaus> We need it to cover personal harassment, as well as harassment of the Community as a whole
19:15 <@Wraith> We could separate the harrasmments, if that is a problem. :/
19:15 <@Clodaus> We can probably can cover both of those in the same phrasing, but we should probably separate the language to make it more clear to thet members
19:16 <@Wraith> Personal and General Harrassment, then?
19:16 <@Clodaus> Is it different enough to merit two separate rules/
19:16 <@Wraith> For us, perhaps not, but for members who love to skirt around the rules, perhaps.
19:16 <@Clodaus> Some general community well-being/protection rule I can see being worth it, but not for something as specific as harassment
19:16 <@Nanara> perhaps just two seperate sections to "Harassment" rather than two seperate rules?
19:17 <@Clodaus> If we're just having two separate types of harassment, we can just add another paragraph
19:17 <@Wraith> wasn't that what we were discussing? O o
19:17 <@Nanara> well, the first part of *1 "Community moderators will make every effort to ensure all members
19:17 <@Nanara> feel safe and at home within the Community." is similar
19:17 <@Clodaus> alright let's take a moment to clarify
19:18 <@Clodaus> Wraith -were you suggesting another paragraph, or antoher section (e.g. 1.1.5 and 1.1.6)
19:18 <@Clodaus> Well, 'Ara to
19:18 <@Clodaus> too*
19:18 <@Wraith> Yes, I was, An addendum, as it were, not separate rules.
19:18 <@Wraith> A paragraph, not section
19:18 <@Clodaus> Oh, alright. That was my confusion
19:18 <@Nanara> Ok
19:19 <@Clodaus> We'll benefit from writing a manual outlining language to use ._.
19:19 <@Clodaus> (I don't know what I'm saying half the time etiher)
19:19 <@Clodaus> Anyawy
19:19 * Wraith thwacks Clodaus. None of that nonsense, please.
19:20 <@Wraith> So. Should we continue and outline general and personal harassment?
19:20 <@Wraith> or..?
19:20 <@Clodaus> So a separate paragraph, and rephrase the existing paragraph so it's clearly stating personal harassment?
19:20 <@Wraith> Yes, for me.
19:20 <@Clodaus> I can agree to that
19:20 <@Wraith> Ara?
19:22 <@Nanara> ok, sounds good
19:22 <@Nanara> (sorry, still reading over the R&Rs
19:22 <@Clodaus> np
19:22 <@Clodaus> I'd say let's discuss general phrasing here, then go back and fourth over the details in the forums, where we're not pressed at all for time.
19:23 <@Clodaus> And come up with a final draft there
19:23 <@Wraith> Fair enough; though it will take longer, it will not, as you say, be rushed
19:23 <@Clodaus> Quality's the key here, I think
19:23 <@Nanara> *nods*
19:23 <@Wraith> I agree. It IS the freaking rules.
19:24 <@Wraith> Let's not half-bake the R&Rs.
19:24 <@Wraith> Okay, First: General or Personal?
19:24 <@Clodaus> Agreed; it'll give us cancer
19:24 <@Nanara> So, definition of harassment inclusive of individual harassment and mass harassment?
19:24 <@Clodaus> umm
19:24 <@Nanara> um
19:24 <@Wraith> ...
19:24 <@Clodaus> well
19:24 <@Wraith> nice, two umms
19:24 <@Clodaus> heh
19:24 <@Clodaus> We need Group harassment too
19:24 <@Nanara> XD
19:24 <@Wraith> Ah! yes
19:24 <@Clodaus> Personal and Group I think can fit into one general "Member Harassment"
19:25 <@Clodaus> But then, harassing the community as a whole is harassing its members, just no specific target
19:25 <@Nanara> perhaps we define harassment in a general sense, using inclusive language so it's not specific to numbers?
19:25 <@Clodaus> (No single member/group)
19:25 <@Clodaus> That would seem fine to me
19:25 * Wraith rubs head.
19:26 <@Nanara> "Harassment is where one party is intensionally being abusive or inappropriate towards another party, whether those parties are individual people, groups, or the community as a whole"?
19:26 <@Clodaus> That seems sufficient...
19:26 <@Wraith> You are my savior. Also, perhaps "aggression" should be included?
19:26 <@Clodaus> I like the use of "party'
19:27 <@Nanara> :3
19:27 <@Clodaus> While aggression is implied, maybe we should include it as an example/another paragraph just to cover our asses
19:27 <@Clodaus> I suppose we have nothing to lose from being specific
19:27 <@Wraith> Covering our asses is.... practical
19:27 <@Nanara> "Harassment is where one party is intensionally being abusive, aggressive or sexually inappropriate towards another party...."
19:27 <@Nanara> hehe
19:28 <@Clodaus> heh, well that is true..but is it needed
19:28 <@Wraith> Well, we can cut out sexually, and just have innapropriate... as sexually inapropriate is inapropriate
19:28 <@Clodaus> I'll post a couple existing definitions to see if there's anything to add/change
19:28 <@Nanara> true, but then we have to define what's inappropriate or not?
19:28 <@Clodaus> "the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism " ~ princeton
19:28 <@Nanara> ahhh
19:29 <@Clodaus> # harass - annoy continually or chronically; "He is known to harry his staff when he is overworked"; "This man harasses his female co-workers"
19:29 <@Clodaus> # harass - exhaust by attacking repeatedly; "harass the enemy"
19:29 <@Nanara> so the essence is unwanted attension that is frequent
19:29 <@Clodaus> Seems so
19:30 <@Clodaus> Though we're using it more generally
19:30 <@Clodaus> And with more specific examples in mind
19:30 <@Wraith> Well... frequent unwanted attention.... that could cover too much analysis to one's posts
19:30 <@Clodaus> So I don't think it'd hurt to include what we have
19:30 <@Nanara> "Harassment is where one party is intensionally and systematically being abusive, agressive or acting in some way that is offensive or upsetting towards another party,, whether those parties are individual people, groups, or the community as a whole?"
19:30 <@Clodaus> ._. well done
19:30 <@Wraith> I'll stick to that, thank you.
19:30 <@Clodaus> haha
19:30 <@Wraith> jeebus christ
19:30 <@Clodaus> 'Ara writes the handbook from now on
19:31 <@Nanara> :D
19:31 <@Nanara> XD
19:31 <@Clodaus> That'll learn 'ya
19:31 <@Clodaus> heh
19:31 <@Wraith> Gawds.... I am insufficient xD
19:31 <@Nanara> You're not insufficient, wrathy, you're awesome :3
19:31 <@Clodaus> You've added your share of good material
19:31 <@Clodaus> Okay
19:31 <@Nanara> exactly
19:32 <@Clodaus> So with that...
19:32 <@Clodaus> Do we even need multiple paragraphs?
19:32 <@Wraith> No.
19:32 <@Nanara> well, that sentence does pretty much cover it
19:32 <@Wraith> In my opinion.
19:32 <@Clodaus> Same
19:32 <@Wraith> It does. @.<
19:32 <@Clodaus> Alright, well
19:32 <@Wraith> And I do tend to overcomplicate my thinking.
19:32 <@Clodaus> I'll post it in the Director forums, but that could very well be the final draft
19:33 <@Clodaus> Or if you want to 'Ara
19:33 <@Clodaus> it is yours
19:33 <@Wraith> Hear hear!
19:33 <@Nanara> maybe make that the first paragraph, then the second one is the bit about telling one of the mods when someone feels harassed..?
19:33 <@Nanara> :3
19:33 <@Clodaus> Rather, maybe the mod forums, or even helper
19:33 <@Clodaus> Get input
19:33 <@Nanara> *wiggles happily*
19:33 <@Nanara> ohh input good
19:33 <@Wraith> Indeed.
19:33 <@Clodaus> Yeah that sounds good, 'Ara (2nd paragraph)
19:33 <@Clodaus> Would you like to post it, then? I have no problem doing so, but it's your work ;)
19:34 <@Nanara> heh, I'm cook either way
19:35 <@Nanara> currently actually reading through the new edits of the R&R
19:35 <@Wraith> true, you do cook deliciously
19:35 <@Nanara> I like the edits we added
19:35 <@Nanara> XD
19:35 <@Nanara> *cool
19:35 <@Nanara> *cackles*
19:35 <@Clodaus> heh
19:35 <@Clodaus> Alright, I'll leave it to you to post int he Helper forums then.
19:35 <@Clodaus> Get some wide input
19:35 <@Clodaus> but I like it as is..
19:36 <@Wraith> We don't HAVE to change it, but added input is always a good thing, Clodaus
19:36 <@Wraith> It won't hurt
19:36 <@Clodaus> (I'm keeping track of minutes again, so everyone knows)
19:36 <@Wraith> Ah, okay.
19:36 <@Clodaus> Yeah I know :)
19:36 <@Clodaus> Okay
19:36 <@Clodaus> Does this solve our moderation issue, though?
[edit] Severity
19:36 <@Clodaus> We have a rule to stick most trolls under
19:36 <@Clodaus> But I still strongly believe moderation should be the same for all members, regardless of whether or not they're trolls
19:37 <@Wraith> Well, the main issue was the speed in which action could be taken against "trolls" to minimuze damage... sooo
19:37 <@Nanara> I tend to agree with you Clody, I'm just aware that the mods don't
19:37 <@Wraith> Technically, you are the Founder, don't you have some sort of veto?
19:37 <@Nanara> hehe
19:37 <@Clodaus> As it stands, we do have the policy of temp suspensions to minimize damage while we come to a decision
19:37 <@Clodaus> And no I do not, Wraith. Not anymore ;)
19:38 <@Clodaus> Though I never wanted to
19:38 <@Wraith> Any...more?
19:38 <@Clodaus> Board has final say, no vetos
19:38 <@Wraith> Ahh.
19:38 <@Nanara> I think perhaps what we need is a better turn around time for action, and an awareness that the 3 warning procedure is changeable depending on severity, which I didn't realise
19:38 <@Clodaus> (Old staff used to give me my way sometimes...unfortunately)
19:39 <@Wraith> Well... my viewpoint is that, if you signed up as a member just to cause trouble or "be a troll"... you are not a member... hence, no equality... so I am very biased.
19:39 <@Clodaus> Well, should we discuss briefly what could increase response time/
19:39 <@Nanara> Clody, if you really believed something was right for the community, I would still vote your way unless I really disagree with you, because you are the founder
19:39 <@Nanara> heh
19:39 <@Wraith> Unfortunately... I'd have to agree with 'Ara. It is your show, Clodaus, not ours.
19:40 <@Clodaus> Then I'll express it and if you guys agree you'll vote upon it appropriately
19:40 <@Nanara> *twitches with the effort of suppressing her writing thoughts* abe kashaan
19:40 <@Nanara> hehe
19:40 * Wraith sighs.
19:40 <@Wraith> Go, Clodaus.
19:40 <@Clodaus> Hm?
19:40 <@Wraith> You said you'd express something?
19:41 <@Clodaus> Oh, hypotheical
19:41 <@Wraith> ah... apologies
19:41 <@Clodaus> heh
19:41 <@Clodaus> But, to reiterate:
19:41 <@Clodaus> Well, should we discuss briefly what could increase response time?
19:41 <@Clodaus> if the problem is potential damage, response time, as 'Ara said, could help that
19:41 <@Nanara> well, I promoted Eternity to admin rights so that should be helped as she online far more than even I am
19:41 <@Wraith> I would like that. Right now what is this about being able to change the 3 warnings depending on severity?
19:42 <@Nanara> the rules all seem to say "depending on severity"
19:42 <@Clodaus> Well, initially, we never technically had a "3 warning rule"
19:42 <@Nanara> there's room in them so that if something severe occurs we can boot someone
19:42 <@Clodaus> People just did that so often that it became a good practice
19:42 <@Clodaus> But in the past, back when Luin was around, we did skip a couple warnings some times
19:43 <@Clodaus> (Not Luin herself necessarily - I'm just setting the timeframe)
19:43 <@Wraith> So... are you telling me that, if we, as Moderators, find a yransgression too "severe", we could boot them?
19:43 <@Clodaus> But I think in the past it also caused us some trouble
19:43 <@Wraith> *transgression
19:43 <@Nanara> She Who Whall Not Be Named only got one warning before she was banned, due to the severity of her actions.
19:43 <@Clodaus> Well..
19:43 <@Clodaus> Heh, yes, exactly
19:43 <@Nanara> yeah, there was some trouble
19:43 <@Clodaus> MT: [Warning (3)] » [Kick] » Suspend
19:44 <@Clodaus> That's for respect
19:44 <@Clodaus> So according to taht, yes
19:44 <@Clodaus> Do I think that's good? No, not anymore
19:44 <@Clodaus> I wrote that long long ago, before we had any experience
19:44 <@Nanara> I think the reason for the ability to do so was in very severe cases.. like ... sexual harassment or.. other really seriously bad stuff
19:44 <@Clodaus> that didn't paste right
19:44 <@Clodaus> that should say "3-"
19:44 <@Nanara> heh
19:44 <@Clodaus> 3 or less
19:45 <@Clodaus> Yeah, we do need the option...
19:45 <@Wraith> Well.... if this is the case.... should we define the severity?
19:45 <@Clodaus> I'm not sure if that's something we could ever do..that's a big task
19:45 <@Wraith> As in what would be considered "severe" enough to warrant an immediate ban, suspension? Or are we getting rid of that alltogther?
19:45 <@Clodaus> Ideally, to go "by the book" yeah..
19:46 <@Clodaus> Would we be able to think of that though..
19:46 <@Clodaus> The situations can vary a lot
19:46 <@Clodaus> Or we'll encounter a situation we didn't account for, then be screwed by our rules
19:46 <@Nanara> I was under the impression that "severe" was something very very bad, like a paedophile on the forum.. or.. someone metaphysically attacking... like very very severe
19:46 <@Nanara> [USERNAME REMOVED] was a fairly bad troll.. very abusive.. but I personally wouldn't have considered him severe
19:47 <@Clodaus> Same
19:47 <@Wraith> So. In that case, could we put in "the Moderators and/or Board Members of the Otherkin Community will dtermine the severity of a transgression(s) and act accordingly"?
19:47 <@Clodaus> That would be fine
19:47 <@Wraith> Sweet. That's a good way to say, we decided it, it's in the rules, now 'naff off.
19:47 <@Clodaus> As a general notice for the entire document
19:48 <@Clodaus> But ultimately it's an ethical decision
19:48 <@Nanara> XD hehe
19:48 <@Wraith> Understood.
19:48 <@Clodaus> That's heavily dependant on the staff at the time...
19:48 <@Clodaus> Which is bad... ._.
19:48 <@Clodaus> But I don't see a way around it
19:48 <@Clodaus> We try to build a staff that's reflective of our goals, ethics and opinions
19:48 <@Clodaus> So we have to trust them with their decisions..
[edit] Moderator Action
19:48 <@Nanara> well, we still have a rule that says all big decisions must have at least one admin/board member voting right?
19:48 <@Clodaus> Yes
19:49 <@Clodaus> But...
19:49 <@Wraith> but?
19:49 <@Nanara> yes, but our current staff hasn't yet met a really bad drama.. we have no idea how they'll react
19:49 <@Clodaus> thinking about that...how does that work..
19:49 <@Clodaus> 5/5 of the mods vote "YES! BAN"
19:49 <@Clodaus> one mod votes "No you're all assholes"
19:49 <@Clodaus> erm, one admin*
19:49 <@Clodaus> Admin's heavily outvoted
19:49 <@Nanara> no, the admin must agree with the vote
19:49 <@Nanara> the admin is the veto vote
19:49 <@Clodaus> But that gives a single person veto power..
19:49 <@Nanara> true
19:49 <@Wraith> .....
19:50 <@Wraith> I smell a rewrite
19:50 <@Clodaus> If the admin is bias, that'll [****] everything over
19:50 <@Nanara> XD
19:50 <@Nanara> yeah, but... there's three admin
19:50 <@Nanara> me, clody and eternity, wraithy you're technically a board member but not an admin, and tsuki isn't around much any more
19:51 <@Clodaus> So we're talking about admin approval of the actual voting process itself
19:51 <@Clodaus> That it's fair, well conducted
19:51 <@Clodaus> Unbias
19:51 <@Nanara> re-phrase?
19:51 <@Wraith> Well.... there really is no way to force someone to be unbiased... I am biased, for chrissakes
19:51 <@Clodaus> Well, yes
19:51 <@Clodaus> But what I'm saying is..
19:52 <@Clodaus> Rather than erquiring an admin to actually vote, why not just require that one admin has to approve the voting process
19:52 <@Clodaus> Look at the thread, see how the mods voted
19:52 <@Clodaus> See that they did it ethically, correctly
19:52 <@Clodaus> In line with our procedures
19:52 <@Wraith> And if they didn't?
19:52 <@Clodaus> Then give it the "OK"
19:52 <@Clodaus> *shrugs* I'm not sure.
19:52 <@Clodaus> Do we need this anymore?
19:52 <@Wraith> Well, we need to fix that right now.
19:52 <@Clodaus> As I said above, we choose are mods
19:52 <@Clodaus> our mods8
19:52 <@Clodaus> **
19:53 <@Clodaus> We should be able to trust them
19:53 <@Clodaus> And if we can't trust them, they shouldn't be moderating
19:53 <@Nanara> *should* and *can* are sometimes very different
19:53 <@Wraith> true, but shit happens
19:53 <@Wraith> what she said
19:53 <@Nanara> I think we do need some way of moderating the moderators
19:53 <@Clodaus> Yeah it has caused problems in the past
19:53 <@Wraith> we have trusted people and modded/admin'd them before, and they had been issues....
19:54 <@Clodaus> But if an admin has to be available for every vote, then the turnaround time is still exactly what it is now
19:54 <@Clodaus> Shit
19:54 <@Nanara> I trust our current group, but as I said, they haven't experienced a huge drama yet so we don't know how they'll handle it or whether their emotions will get int he way.
19:54 <@Nanara> :3
19:54 <@Clodaus> Well, I did forget about Eternity being an admin
19:54 <@Nanara> well, I am on usually every day
19:54 <@Clodaus> So it may work out still..
19:55 <@Wraith> There is no sure way to know for sure.
19:55 <@Clodaus> Okay...well, what would happen if the admin deems it unacceptable?
19:55 <@Nanara> nicely tell them why not?
19:55 <@Clodaus> Turn the vote over to the next in charge at that point in time (Board atm)?
19:55 <@Clodaus> Well that too
19:55 <@Clodaus> But a revote may not be appropriate..if they're already bias and set on it
19:56 <@Wraith> I suppose, the next set of authority would review and revote... not the original people
19:56 <@Nanara> well, how about outlining to the mods why it's not a just decision? I mean, the only disagreement would be if its not in line with the rules.. so you'd just have to point out the rules?
19:56 <@Clodaus> I agree that we should tell them why
19:56 <@Clodaus> But if they've already made a decision, will they be willing to change it, or remain bias to their previous?
19:57 <@Nanara> and.. in the situations where the rules don't support the admin decision.. well.. as cold as this is going to sound.. they've got to learn from mistakes sometime
19:57 <@Nanara> hrm
19:57 <@Clodaus> Well regarding the admin decision - I still think the admin shouldn't simply be able to say "yes" or "no" and veto. I think it should be approval based off of the fact that the mods followed procedure
19:57 <@Clodaus> Or did we already agree on that
19:58 <@Clodaus> I can't remmeber
19:58 <@Wraith> we already agreed, a yes or no will be stated only on precedure and/or rules
19:58 <@Nanara> perhaps it's simply our angle of attack that's the problem on this issue? I mean.. we're talking about vetoing things, like, admin have the "right" and the mods may be "wrong", if we start from the beginning with the concept of "where in the rules does this moderation action come from".. then the correction would be from the rules not from an overbearing admin?
19:58 <@Clodaus> Essentailly
19:58 <@Clodaus> Essentially*
19:59 <@Wraith> I am going crosseyed.
19:59 <@Clodaus> Took me a min to understand it too, heh
19:59 <@Clodaus> The rules are the ultimate authority, not an admin
19:59 <@Wraith> indeed.
19:59 <@Clodaus> The admin only conveys the rulse to the mods
19:59 <@Clodaus> If they followed the rules, vote goes through. If not, then it doesn't
19:59 <@Clodaus> And that's where we're stuck
19:59 <@Nanara> I do think we need a quiet rule that gives us board/admin an out if we get a full mutiny from the mods.. but.. beyond that I don't think we need too much moderation of the moderators
19:59 <@Nanara> *nods*
20:00 <@Wraith> Okay. So say if the vote is "no" because the R&R's were not followed. Could we hand the decision over to the next cicrcle of authorities, of people who had not voted in the original dsicussion?
20:00 <@Wraith> That might be the admins, or the Board members.
20:01 <@Clodaus> I suppose the admins would be the next highest authority..
20:01 <@Clodaus> I'm fine with that
20:02 <@Wraith> Frankly, it doesn't matter to me WHO does it, as long as they were not in the original vote. Cuts out further bias.
20:02 <@Nanara> lets hope it doesn't come to that.. because that would screw with the turn around time.. heh
20:02 <@Wraith> It would.
20:02 <@Nanara> *nods*
20:02 <@Wraith> But oh damn well, you know? The rules & regs come first, always
20:02 <@Nanara> *nod* very true
20:02 <@Clodaus> Alright
20:02 <@Clodaus> All in agreement, then/
20:03 <@Wraith> if we don't follow the rules we set out in the first place, anarchy.
20:03 <@Wraith> I vote yes.
20:03 <@Nanara> ai!
20:03 <@Nanara> (yes)
20:03 <@Clodaus> cool
20:03 <@Wraith> Ahh, that was refreshing.
20:03 <@Wraith> Next?
[edit] Website Modifications
[edit] Inbox New Message Count
20:03 <@Clodaus> Turn around time
20:04 <@Clodaus> What we can do to improve it
20:04 <@Clodaus> I have one minor suggestion - e-mailing the mods when a post is reported
20:04 <@Clodaus> So users themselves can help turn around
20:04 <@Clodaus> or sending mods PMs, one of the two
20:04 <@Clodaus> 2nd would still result in e-mail
20:04 <@Nanara> as I said, with Eternity being another day-to-day admin online will help increase turn around time
20:04 <@Nanara> ooh
20:04 <@Wraith> Well, we all get emails once we are PM'd, so a PM is fine
20:05 <@Nanara> I would very much like it if the report thingie sent us a notification of some variety
20:05 <@Clodaus> In case some mods don't check e-mail, PM may be better
20:05 <@Wraith> And frankly, I'd love to know exactly when something happens, as I can go there immeditaely and not miss important things
20:05 <@Wraith> ...as always
20:05 <@Clodaus> PMs should also be made more visible I think. Only the main page shows new PMs
20:05 <@Clodaus> Same. I rarely check reported posts, honestly..
20:05 <@Wraith> Oh, Cloddy.
20:05 <@Wraith> How would we make PMs more visible?
20:06 <@Clodaus> With the current design it's difficult
20:06 <@Nanara> I forget about reported posts, though Eternity seems to remember them
20:06 <@Wraith> Have a bar under the OtherkinCommunity logo as a constant until said PM is read?
20:06 <@Clodaus> Maybe for now just put an aserisk next to Inbox
20:06 <@Clodaus> hm?
20:06 <@Clodaus> (So like Inbox*, or Inbox(#) where # = # unread)
20:06 <@Nanara> I got my account to email me when I get a PM and I keep both of my emails open at all times.. I still miss it sometimes though
20:07 <@Nanara> ohh
20:07 <@Nanara> that'd be good :3
20:07 <@Wraith> mmm.
20:08 <@Clodaus> Is everyone okay with Inbox (#)?
20:08 <@Clodaus> It's a simple, quick solution until a redesign
20:08 <@Wraith> I vote yes.
20:08 <@Nanara> sounds good :3
20:08 <@Clodaus> kk
[edit] Moderator Thread Notifications
20:09 <@Clodaus> Is there anything else we can think of for turnaround atm?
20:09 <@Wraith> other than superpowers?
20:09 <@Nanara> is it possible to link the reported posts to an email, PM or the ticket notification? I think you told me a while back that it'd take a while to work
20:09 <@Nanara> hehe
20:09 <@Clodaus> Like maybe automatic notification of new posts in the Moderators/Threads & Users forums
20:09 <@Wraith> yessssss please
20:09 <@Clodaus> How do you mean?
20:09 <@Nanara> oooh that would help
20:10 <@Wraith> Similar to when you get an email saying someone has repllyed to a thread you have commented in, only when anyone posts anything in any section of the mods forums?
20:10 <@Nanara> yeah, and the Helpers
20:10 <@Clodaus> Yeah
20:10 <@Nanara> *forum
20:10 <@Nanara> that'd be very helpful
20:11 <@Clodaus> it'd probably be the same e-mail. Just automatically subscribe all mods to the thread when it's posted
20:11 <@Clodaus> Then you can unsubscribe if you don't want to watch that thread
20:11 <@Wraith> That would solve so many problems... at least for me, personally
20:11 <@Nanara> *nods*
20:11 <@Wraith> Please, say this will happen!
20:11 <@Clodaus> lol, I'll make it happen
20:11 <@Clodaus> May take a week or two for everything
20:11 <@Wraith> I think I love you.
20:11 <@Wraith> Just FYI.
20:12 <@Clodaus> Ah, I've been waiting so long!
20:12 <@Clodaus> ..alright, enough of taht
20:12 <@Clodaus> that*
20:12 <@Wraith> ......[****]
20:12 <@Clodaus> lol
20:12 <@Clodaus> Okay, so taking into account increased turn around (hopefully)
20:12 <@Nanara> XD hehe
20:12 <@Clodaus> That takes us back to the root issue
[edit] Moderation of "Trolls"
20:12 <@Clodaus> Will that solve the troll problem?
20:12 <@Clodaus> Thereby making moderation the same for trolls and other members
20:13 <@Clodaus> Remember, temp suspension is always a possibility
20:13 <@Wraith> And having us be able to decide the severity of actions....
20:13 <@Clodaus> Yes
20:13 <@Wraith> Well.... I have nothing else to ad... so unless someone comes up with another idea, this is as good as it gets
20:13 <@Wraith> *add
20:13 <@Nanara> I don't think it'll solve the problem completely, but I do think it might make the mods a little happier with the system
20:13 <@Clodaus> As long as our decision on severity is unbias to trolls ;)
20:14 <@Wraith> Yes, of course, Clodaus.
20:14 <@Clodaus> We'll always be there to help guide 'em through it
20:14 <@Clodaus> I know the bias'll still exist for them
20:14 <@Clodaus> Alright, final vote on moderating the same for trolls and members, taking into account increased turn around and ability to determine severity
20:15 <@Clodaus> I vote yes...fair compromise I suppose
20:15 <@Wraith> they'll either gorw out of it and be promoted, or... not be promoted
20:15 <@Clodaus> heh, yep
20:15 <@Wraith> I vote yes.
20:15 <@Nanara> hehe
20:15 <@Nanara> yep
20:15 <@Clodaus> Great :)
[edit] Decision Summary
20:16 <@Clodaus> I think we accomplished a lot. That completes the original meeting agenda, and then some
20:16 <@Clodaus> Anything else?
20:16 <@Wraith> This was quite possibly the shortest Board meeting ever?
20:16 <@Clodaus> It's been just under two hours
20:16 <@Wraith> We should have mroe like them?
20:16 <@Clodaus> heh
20:16 <@Wraith> *more
20:17 <@Clodaus> Alright, I'll jsut briefly recap on the decisions. If there's no objections, we're done
20:17 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, in favor of adopting bylaw amendment
20:17 <@Nanara> :D *dances*
20:17 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, in favor of posting chat logs of Board meetings - Make thread in mod forums about mod chat logs - Clody'll post his arguments
20:17 <@Clodaus> <@Nanara> "Harassment is where one party is intensionally and systematically being abusive, agressive or acting in some way that is offensive or upsetting towards another party,, whether those parties are individual people, groups, or the community as a whole?"
20:17 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, agreement on 1.1.5 rule modification - 'Ara will post for input in Helper forums
20:17 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, admins should "authorize" moderation based off of whether or not procedure was followed, but never veto it
20:17 <@Clodaus> - If there's a problem with the vote, vote is placed in hands of next highest authority (admins at present)
20:17 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, Inbox (#) where # = number unread
20:18 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, automatic notification of new messages in Moderators/Threads & Users (and helpers)
20:18 <@Clodaus> - 3/0, final vote on moderating the same for trolls and members, taking into account increased turn around and ability to determine severity
20:18 <@Clodaus> That's all
20:18 <@Wraith> gods, music to my ears
[edit] Racism & Bigotry
20:18 <@Clodaus> Oh, crap
20:18 <@Clodaus> Hold it!
20:18 <@Wraith> hmm?
20:18 <@Clodaus> One other thing, that I took a note on
20:18 <@Clodaus> <@Nanara> (also... picky editor note.. technically our use of the word "racism" in the rules is actually "bigotry")
20:18 <@Clodaus> How do you mean, 'Ara?
20:19 <@Nanara> um
20:20 <@Nanara> "Racism includes hostile/degrading
20:20 <@Nanara> actions or comments toward any general party – be it physical race,
20:20 <@Nanara> otherkin race, religion, or any other group or special interest group."
20:20 <@Nanara> this is actually "bigotry" not racism
20:20 <@Nanara> by.. you know... definition
20:20 <@Clodaus> Oh
20:20 <@Wraith> well, what would racism be by definition, then?
20:20 <@Clodaus> Or could we keep the same language and refine the rule title?
20:20 <@Clodaus> I'd like all those to stay included
20:21 <@Nanara> racism is defined as descrimination based on race
20:21 <@Clodaus> Racism & Bigotry or something
20:21 <@Nanara> we include stuff like religion and group association.. which is bigotry
20:21 <@Clodaus> I'd prefer to include Racism because that makes more sense to people generally than Bigotry
20:21 <@Nanara> but as I said.. that was just me being a finicky wench... heh
20:21 <@Nanara> *nods*
20:22 <@Wraith> Well.... when it comes to things like this, finicky is good... however, we can simply have them both as a category
20:22 <@Nanara> *nods*
20:22 <@Wraith> [20:21] <Clodaus> Racism & Bigotry or something
20:22 <@Wraith> as he said
20:22 <@Wraith> well, not the something
20:22 <@Nanara> most people use racism as an all encompassing word these days anyway
20:22 <@Clodaus> I kinda like the something
20:22 <@Wraith> shuddap you
20:22 <@Clodaus> heh
20:23 <@Clodaus> Alright, all in favor say "or something!"
20:23 <@Nanara> XD hehehe
20:23 <@Clodaus> I foresee Wraith being a rebel
20:23 <@Wraith> .....
20:23 <@Wraith> Am I not already?
20:23 <@Wraith> :P
20:23 <@Clodaus> Exactly
20:23 <@Clodaus> Everyone say what you wish, then, just vote!
20:23 <@Wraith> Okay, before I vote, someone clarify what decision was just made
20:23 <@Nanara> hehe
20:23 <@Clodaus> Retitle "Racism" to "Racism & Bigotry"
20:24 <@Nanara> ai ai!
20:24 <@Clodaus> or something!
20:24 <@Clodaus> (..yes)
20:24 <@Wraith> Or something!
20:24 <@Wraith> (yes)
20:25 <@Clodaus> Goddamnit, she's being a rebel rebel!
20:25 <@Nanara> XD
20:25 <@Clodaus> I didn't see that coming
20:25 <@Nanara> Rebels are good :3
20:25 <@Nanara> keep things interesting
20:25 <@Wraith> Clodaus, I can do my job professionally without my biases showing through.
20:25 <@Wraith> That's all I care about.
20:25 <@Nanara> :3
20:26 <@Clodaus> So, anything else?
20:26 <@Wraith> I have nothing left, at the current time.
20:26 <@Clodaus> Alright. I'll probably create a simple web page to load the chat logs and allow us to click on lines to remove/unremove them
20:27 <@Wraith> hmmm.
20:27 <@Wraith> alrighty then.
20:27 <@Clodaus> So we can all decide on that together. But I'll go through it first and ermove all I can. You guys can just remove/edit them additionally
20:27 <@Nanara> we do loves you clody :3
20:27 <@Wraith> ....I find you tolerable some days, intolerable others.
20:27 <@Clodaus> haha
20:27 <@Nanara> ok
20:27 <@Clodaus> Excellent
20:28 <@Clodaus> (Or if I don't have the time, strikethru in a post will suffice)
20:28 <@Wraith> mmkay
20:28 <@Wraith> ghetto edit
20:28 <@Nanara> lol
20:28 <@Clodaus> Alright, meeting adjourned!
