Processes and Procedures - The vote for Guest access to Jediism Forum

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago #327224 by

Senan wrote: Before the conspiracy theories get too far down the tracks, let me do my best to clarify what happened then and what is happening now here in an open forum for everyone to see.
And yes, I'm writing this in blue on purpose. It is my hope that this will stand out as an official explanation from a current sitting Councillor as well as someone willing to answer any questions that come up from my response.

First, the actual issue is not a contentious one. We accept that guests who can see a forum post would like to be able to respond to those posts as well. We also accept that members of higher rank also want to see this happen. When it was originally discussed, this was the goal of our conversation within Council and the vote that took place.

Next, we discussed the issue and took it to a vote in Council back in February. A Councillor can vote to APPROVE a motion, DENY a motion, or ABSTAIN, which is the same as a NO vote according to our bylaws. Recent adjustments to our bylaws have also put a time limit of ten days for Councillors to vote. This was not in place when this original conversation occurred in February, so technically a Councillor could still vote on the motion today and change the outcome. Now, only those votes cast in that time limit of ten days count toward a majority. In order for a motion to pass, a majority must be reached one way or another. Councillors who are absent and don't vote at all will now be considered ABSENT after ten days and not included in the total needed for a majority.

The confusion we have currently with this issue is despite the posts by more than one Councillor revealing the outcome, there is no thread in Council Chambers detailing who voted which way.
For a vote to be official, we have to post whether we APPROVE, DENY, or ABSTAIN along with our name, date, and time. This thread becomes the official record of a vote being taken and can be referred to in the future should there be any confusion, argument, or disagreement. For this specific motion, we can't find this official thread in Council. The votes occurred in a bunch of different conversations about it and not every vote was cast correctly. That means legally, this vote never happened.

So what now? We're trying to clean up the mess by discussing in Council what happened, making sure we all understand how the voting has to work, making sure we are following all bylaws, and then properly communicating the results to the membership. This is an ongoing process meant to clean up a lot of the mystery and confusion that has occurred with a number of motions made in the last few years.

I want to be clear. There is no nefarious plan to hide anything or undo work that has already been done. We are not secretly undoing changes that were asked for by our membership and approved by Council vote. We are trying to clean up our records so that we can be MORE TRANSPARENT, not less. If a lawyer was to walk in and ask us for documentation of our procedures here, we want a clean record to provide. I know it seems like a whole lot of rumbling over what should be a pretty simple issue, but it is important that we get this stuff right as we move forward and establish the proper habits. If we can't even get the easy stuff right, how can we expect to execute properly when a tough issue arises?

I will follow up with other Councillors today and attempt to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible. Thank you for your questions and for your patience. I'm not here to make excuses.
I'm here to give you information. It is up to you to decide how you interpret that information, but I would hope we all can see that we have to work together to make things better here.



So I thought I would drag this out into its own thread so we could track it more openly as well as have a place to discuss if need be that would not interfere with the original thread it was posted in.

I understand this is in discussion and we are all eagerly awaiting a resolution. However in the mean time I did have one question about a comment made above. That question surrounds the abstention vote. Maybe its just not described well above but in the text above, Senan describes the vote to abstain counts the same as a NO vote. But that has never been what I understood an abstention vote to be. My understanding of an abstention vote has always been a vote that can be cast by a voter that counts as both a "yes" and a "no".

Reasons a voter might abstain include them feeling they are not adequately informed about the issue at hand, or they have not participated in relevant discussion or they have a real or perceived conflict of interest. So voting to abstain is effectively the same as not voting at all because the vote of yes and no cancel each other out and the outcome of the vote is not changed. But the vote still serves a function because the voter can still participate in the vote to balance out the vote by providing a quorum of voters.

So I wonder what the purpose of this abstain vote here is then if it counts only as a NO vote? Why not just have a NO vote?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #327230 by

ren wrote: A majority of councillors has decided to remove read and write access to the jediism category to guests. No councillor voted in favour of retaining the read-only system we have now, and no councillor voted to open the jediism category to guests.

I'd shake hands and offer my congratulations, but my palms are busy covering my face.

Kobos: i like to set the record straight. I have no hard feelings towards tellahane, i wish he hadn't left, but he is wrong, so i am informing him.



WAIT A MINUTE... WHAT???!!!

Not only have we been denied a privilege that had already been voted in but we are also now having even more rights removed so that now we cant even see the forum? How is this possible?

With all due respect I don't see how a vote could have been cast to remove even more privileges than we had before??? The council works for the temple, correct? If I recall there was a majority of membership that was in favor of the new privileges originally 8 months ago so why is it now reversed and not only that but even more taken away without cause?

I would respectfully like to open a dialogue at minimum on this and an appeal at most. Is that possible?
Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago #327231 by
You are correct in your interpretation of my description of the voting, Kyrin, and it is confusing. I'm still confused by it, to be honest, so I ask a lot of questions.

You are right that an ABSTAIN vote is meant to imply that a Councillor is participating in the vote, but hasn't made a decision due to lack of information, personal bias, or other reasons. During the voting window, it is not counted as a YES or NO, but now that we added the ten day limit on voting, if the ABSTAIN vote is not changed to a YES or NO by the end of the voting period, it does not count toward the final tally. It basically becomes void and does not contribute to the majority of either side. There really isn't a purpose to it other than making it known that a Councillor actually showed up and chose not to participate instead of it seeming like they missed the vote entirely. For instance, if the membership wanted to know how I voted on a certain issue, I would rather it say ABSTAIN than no vote existing at all because I wouldn't want it to appear like I was absent and didn't care.

I think I have this right. I still might be confused though. Ren or Br. John can probably explain it better than I can.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago #327234 by
And here's my response to the recent result from another thread...

First, the vote wasn't unanimous. We just reached the necessary majority for it to pass. I hadn't voted yet, but it wouldn't matter because the measure passed without me anyway.

Second, things have changed since the last time this conversation took place. Most notably, there are people who formerly had access to higher levels of the forums that have requested to have their status changed to "guest" after resigning or giving up a rank. Technically, this puts those people on the same level as someone brand new walking in the front door for the first time, so we have to consider what the best procedure is to grant anyone in this position interested the role of "Member" and decide what access that will give them. At one point this involved taking the Simple Vow. We've also discussed whether certain lessons should be completed in order to become a Member rather than just a guest. Since all of this is currently being reviewed, the decision made now is being informed by a different set of circumstances than it was before.

As difficult as it is to accommodate everyone, it only gets harder when we are asked to reconsider issues from the past with a different Council in place operating under different rules. Outcomes will not always be the same as they were before as circumstances change.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 5 months ago #327236 by Manu

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Not only have we been denied a privilege that had already been voted in but we are also now having even more rights removed so that now we cant even see the forum? How is this possible?

With all due respect I don't see how a vote could have been cast to remove even more privileges than we had before??? The council works for the temple, correct? If I recall there was a majority of membership that was in favor of the new privileges originally 8 months ago so why is it now reversed and not only that but even more taken away without cause?

I would respectfully like to open a dialogue at minimum on this and an appeal at most. Is that possible?


First off, let's clarify the wording. This forum is privately owned and privately managed. So we have no "right" to participate in a forum. It is, as you correctly worded a "privilege". And privileges may be modified at any time by management, for any reason.

Second, I would personally prefer the Jediism forum to be open to Guest participation, but if it isn't, there are a bunch of other forums in which you can post. The odd part of having the Jediism forum restricted to members posting, was that it was still visible to Guests, so it ended up being a place where people intended open discussion, only to not realize guests would be unable to post. The inconsistency was having a forum that was members-only but be displayed publicly.

If the members-only forum gets hidden from guests, then the inconsistency is eliminated.

You might not like that, of course. Maybe neither do I. But I don't think it really is as big a deal as some people have made it out to be. Now, that it might have popped up as a proxy issue to the more general issue of Temple inconsistency in decision-making and policy, that is understandable. But then THAT is the issue worth discussing more thoroughly.

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neaj Pa Bol, , Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • ren
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
    Registered
  • Not anywhere near the back of the bus
More
5 years 5 months ago #327240 by ren
How it was until recently:
-for a motion to pass, it needed at least hslf the council to consent to it. On a council of 10 this meant that 6 'consents' would see the motion succeed. This was the case whether the other councillors were absent, do not consent, abstain, protest, etc.

How it is now:
-if a motion has a majority of the council backing it, it passes. (Same thing as before)
-if on a council of 10, only 8 councillors cast a vote within 10 days, the majority drops from 6 to 5.
-voting 'abstain' is the same thing as not voting, but a bit more polite. Once the 10 days have elapsed, they do not count towards the majority.


In the case of the recent motion regarding guest access to the jediism forum, the rules were altered a little bit:
Consent was for making the entire jediism forum members only
Abstain was for keeping it is it was
Do not consent was to see it fully accessible to guests.

In the event no majority had been reached, (of consents or do not consents), things would have stayed the same.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #327243 by
You are absolutely correct Manu, the access is a privilege and not a right and I purposely worded my reply in that manner.

Senan wrote: And here's my response to the recent result from another thread...

First, the vote wasn't unanimous. We just reached the necessary majority for it to pass. I hadn't voted yet, but it wouldn't matter because the measure passed without me anyway.

Second, things have changed since the last time this conversation took place. Most notably, there are people who formerly had access to higher levels of the forums that have requested to have their status changed to "guest" after resigning or giving up a rank. Technically, this puts those people on the same level as someone brand new walking in the front door for the first time, so we have to consider what the best procedure is to grant anyone in this position interested the role of "Member" and decide what access that will give them.



Thanks Senan. I can understand this dilemma although I do not agree with it. Many old members here have become guests this year for many reasons and many have completed these lessons you are speaking of already. Even though I chose to become a guest I still enjoyed at least reading that Jediism board as I still consider myself as such, just not a TotJO member because of my personal path as you well know.

In any event I must apologize to every guest of this temple. If I had not brought up the subject in another thread this would have never been an issue and we would not have lost privileges as a result so i sincerely apologize. I never meant for anyone to actually lose privilege over a comment I made. :( :(
Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 5 months ago #327244 by Tellahane

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You are absolutely correct Manu, the access is a privilege and not a right and I purposely worded my reply in that manner.

Senan wrote: And here's my response to the recent result from another thread...

First, the vote wasn't unanimous. We just reached the necessary majority for it to pass. I hadn't voted yet, but it wouldn't matter because the measure passed without me anyway.

Second, things have changed since the last time this conversation took place. Most notably, there are people who formerly had access to higher levels of the forums that have requested to have their status changed to "guest" after resigning or giving up a rank. Technically, this puts those people on the same level as someone brand new walking in the front door for the first time, so we have to consider what the best procedure is to grant anyone in this position interested the role of "Member" and decide what access that will give them.



Thanks Senan. I can understand this dilemma although I do not agree with it. Many old members here have become guests this year for many reasons and many have completed these lessons you are speaking of already. Even though I chose to become a guest I still enjoyed at least reading that Jediism board as I still consider myself as such, just not a TotJO member because of my personal path as you well know.

In any event I must apologize to every guest of this temple. If I had not brought up the subject in another thread this would have never been an issue and we would not have lost privileges as a result so i sincerely apologize. I never meant for anyone to actually lose privilege over a comment I made. :( :(


There's two of probably many possible solutions to that, first being some type of "honorary" rank that sits above guest for formerly ranked members who can still participate in such forums...or simply if you want to post in there, re-apply and maintain a membership. Which is probably the better solution IMO.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 5 months ago #327245 by Manu

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: In any event I must apologize to every guest of this temple. If I had not brought up the subject in another thread this would have never been an issue and we would not have lost privileges as a result so i sincerely apologize. I never meant for anyone to actually lose privilege over a comment I made. :( :(


You give yourself too much credit. This topic was brought up a long time ago, and many did suggest that the problem was not having a members-only forum, but having a members-only forum that was publicly visible. So don't feel bad if you can no longer participate in that forum, it is not your fault, you didn't cause it, and it is not about you.

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alethea Thompson, Gisteron, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 5 months ago #327291 by

Tellahane wrote: There's two of probably many possible solutions to that, first being some type of "honorary" rank that sits above guest for formerly ranked members who can still participate in such forums...or simply if you want to post in there, re-apply and maintain a membership. Which is probably the better solution IMO.


I dont know if either of those are a viable solution. The first becomes to cumbersome to manage and the second is not really an option for those of us that chose to be guests for a specific reason. you are one of those that chose the guest position. How do you feel about not being able to see the Jediism board?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi