From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 15:08:07 MDT
[Hermit 1]
[Casey 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Casey 4]
[Hermit 5]
[hr]
[Casey 4] I'm curious about this poll currently open.
[Hermit 5] You shouldn't be. It was created when, despite our discussing this issue on IRC, when we were trying to settle the wording, and when I thought you had been satisfied, you surprised me by chosing to raise the issue again in your earlier letter here on this thread. (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29141).
[Hermit 5] As you can see, on realizing that issue still concerned you, I opened a poll on the issue to allow those voting to express their opinions (and modified the wiki disownment document to reflect the fact that this issue was being voted upon as soon as I saw your post voicing concern about this. I also notified the list of this in my response at [Hermit 3].
[Casey 4] What I find interesting is this:http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=36
What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months 11.35 (25.83%)
6 months 4.30 (9.78%)
1 year 21.22 (48.27%)
never 0.00 (0.00%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Casey 4] Per the Disownment article, the first time to appeal Disownment is at 6 months, then again at 1 year.
[Hermit 5] Why is it "interesting"? As I explained earlier when you raised this on IRC, I originally merely accepted the 6 months period used by the "society of friends", without applying a lot of thought to the issue, as I considered that the 6 months delay they used from disownment to first oportunity to reapply for membership would be an appropriate period. Then you reiterated your concern over the duration of the period here, which, until your letter, I thought had been resolved whan I explained that 3 months was almost certainly too short. Given the degree of concern I perceived in your letter, I thought that it would be far more appropriate to put it before the membership to decide, rather than simply leaving my opinion in place.
[Hermit 5] Given that, on reconsidering the lower intimacy of communication in our situation (Internet) versus the "society of friends'" (IRL situation), I thought that perhaps even 6 months was maybe somewhat too soon, and seeing as I was putting the issue to the community to resolve anyway, I increased the offered range of periods from just the original six months, and 3 months that you had suggested to the range reflected above. And given the huge preponderance of support for a longer period, I'm rather glad that I offered the increased period, as evidently one year has by far the majority of the support amongst voters to-date. Not that I blame them, as, in my opinion, the issue of managing our public perception has taken far too much time already.
[Hermit 5] Does this latest "expression of concern" mean that you are suggesting that you would rather I had not put this period up to the community for resolution?
[Casey 4] In that case, is the poll above in regards to the first or second appeal of Disownment?
[Hermit 5] As clearly stated in all of the proposed policy documents, it is intended that there would be only one immediate appeal of a "disownment" (and if this occured, it would take place prior to the disownment occuring). At that point the member would be exactly like any other member of the public, except in so far as they would not be able to reapply for membership in the CoV until some period had passed (and of course, if they were ever accepted back into the community, people might remember what had happened before imposing a need to adhere to commitments not to reoffend). I really am not sure how else I should have labelled the poll, after all, What period after disownment should ex-members be allowed to reapply for membership seems to me to say that first the members become no longer members, then there is a period in which they can't reapply, and which this question centers about, whereafter they can reapply for membership. Would you have phrased it differently?
[Casey 4] Also, by what standards does a Virian become a "solid Virian"? What constitutes the prerequisites to be considered one of these "solid Virians"? Is there a particular score I need to become one of these "solid Virians"?
[Hermit 5] You might have noticed that the phrase "solid Virians" is a link, and had you clicked on it, or navigated up the document hierarch to policy, you would have discovered that the quoted phrase "solid Virians" leads to a proposed definition at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/SolidVirians which states:
A solid Virian is a member of the Church of Virus in good standing, who has signed up on the Reputation System (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=repIndex) and who is regarded with a "Strong positive opinion" or better by fellow Virians. This is the case for around 25% of Virians on the Reputation system (as in general, we tend to respect each other a lot). The only way to lose such status is for a significant proportion of the community to lose respect for you - and potentially (according to another proposal under discussion at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Voting), by displaying apathy and not voting. In addition, it is proposed that the Virian Council be able to establish this level from time to time. But for now the hardly elitist 7+ reputation rating is all that is required.
[Casey 4] Also, what are my chances of receiving a fair and impartial judgement if I, or anyone for that matter, is brought up for Disownment?
[Hermit 5] I'd hope that all Virians could be sufficiently unbiased to give you a fair trial. Otherwise the question of why they are respected must come to mind. Given that you have ranked your fellow Virians as:1 (0.00%)
2 (0.00%)
3 1 (3.45%)
4 2 (6.90%)
5 12 (41.38%)
6 2 (6.90%)
7 4 (13.79%)
8 2 (6.90%)
9 6 (20.69%) or, in other words, you have ranked 12 Virians as people whom you respect and thus eligable to participate, it seems to me that unless you are horribly out of synchronisation with the rest of the community, you don't really think you have anything to worry about.
[Casey 4] What if someone who is a "solid Virian" and I had a falling out; what would be the steps to prevent any misuse of the Disownment policy by the aforementioned "solid Virian"?
[Hermit] I'd expect the fact that it would take 4 votes to pass a motion on a committee of 7, I think you needn't concern yourself. I would suggest that if you don't trust your fellow Virians, particularly those who are regarded as respected by the voice of the community, to follow the "Virian Virtues" and eschew the "Senseless Sins", you really out to be asking yourself what you are doing here at all.
[Casey 4] My opinion in this matter is that these and many more questions need to be addressed prior to this policy's implementation.
[Hermit 5] So you should vote no. The vast majority of those who have voted to date obviously disagree with you, and many I have spoken to, like me, wish we'd had a policy like this in place since it was first mooted and discussed back in the 1990s. But that is what voting is about. To determine the will of the community. Yes?
[Casey 4] Finally, how long do polls stay open?
[Hermit 5] That depends on the person establishing them as it has not yet been formalized. In this instance, as stated initially, the primary poll closing time will be determined by the polling results. The vote will remain active until a 60% or greater majority accepting or rejecting the policy is achieved, or until the number of votes and abstainments together make it impossible to establish a 60% position.
In other words, sometime after the vote equals 60% of the equity, or if abstainments makes it impossible to achieve a 60% result, then the poll will be closed (I don't plan to sit and watch it so I may miss the exact instant). The motion will be carried if 60% of the voters support it. The secondary, related poll, will, as stated when it was establised, be closed simultaneously with the primary vote on the grounds that is should receive votes simulataneously with the first, and it relates to the same issue.
Hope that helped
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29141> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 15:09:28 MDT