Author
|
Topic: The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus (Read 5747 times) |
|
JD
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
 |
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #60 on: 2003-10-07 19:53:53 » |
 |
Dear Hermit,
Thank you for taking the time to comprehensively answer my questions. It is
late here now (00:36) and I am too tired digest it properly. I will read
through your answers in the morning and if I have any more questions I will
post them.
I will say though that whilst I have seen many c&p articles posted by all of
us, apart from Joe's brief flooding (he sees it as defence against a
coordinated attack) I have never seen anyone "bombarding [the CoV] with c&p
articles, Christian apologetics, continuous assertions of bigoted statements
about other groups and disparagement of others" either together or
individually.
What might help is a benchmark, say Usenet, where we can see real villainy
and abuse. Proper comparison will avoid the danger of us judging each other
against ideals which we all fall short of and consequently are too harsh on
ourselves.
Finally, I came across a great looking book on crime in Forbidden Planet on
Saturday. It is the FBI crime classification manual in one volume. Cannot
find it on amazon.co.uk, but looked really good.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 07 October 2003 19:51
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
 
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #61 on: 2003-10-07 20:02:31 » |
|
I'll probably be around for the IRC chat. Just 2 things I noticed, so that they can be addressed properly.
1. There must be a mistake in the Disciplinary Process document.
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess
At the top of the page it says "WikiAccepted 2003-08-25".
However, if you click on the "WikiAccepted" link to go read what it means, it explains that WikiAccepted is "A document accepted as an official document of the Church of Virus by means of a vote by the congregation."
Apparently the DisciplinaryProcess document is not WikiAccepted (neither is the WikiAccepted page itself, for that matter, but I guess we'll have to use some base rules to bootstrap).
2. The Disownment Document was voted, but no procedures were in place at the time. The vote was posted among many other votes and informative polls when we were dealing with the Joe Dees issue , and it was specifically declared a policy vote by Lucifer afterwards.
Taking into account that there is a reason we are now requiring a certain procedure before a vote, I don't consider that document WikiAccepted either. I only consider it empowered by the the Sheriff's Law for as long as it is in place.
This is my reading of the current status, if anyone asks me to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #62 on: 2003-10-07 20:05:47 » |
|
[Jonathan Davis] P.S Regarding Elvensage's claims, I also think there is a general sense of unease about these proposals.
[Hermit] I have noticed five people raise queries and 3 making objections. Given 50+ members of the Congregation and 1600+ members of the CoV, I don't think that you are correct.
[Mermaid]Maybe the eight care more than the rest out of 50+(which includes an alice bot). Many in the Meridion are rare visitors to the BBS and are mostly from the chatroom. I doubt if some of them are even aware of this controversy considering that only part of the discussion takes place in #virus and the rest in #rats and #hermit(where I am banned, btw...expect me in #rats if you refuse to discuss these issues in #virus...I'll be there... )
[Hermit] [...]and as I don't think we want or need to establish a court system, we have taken the approach of relying on "reputable" members of the congregation, with the interests of the CoV and membership at heart, to interpret these things for us, guided by process which authorises them to do this on our behalf. If you want to change this, I suggest you start writing.
[Mermaid]We havent decided on this system....yet... How about objecting and discussing instead of (re)writing?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #63 on: 2003-10-07 20:21:26 » |
|
We are talking about: http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess
This document contains authorizations via three votes, all referenced at the top of the page:
Should the CoV accept the policy of disownment as documented at [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment]http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment[/url]
This is of course the most important one as it established the process, powers and methodology. Rather than pointing people to a page on "Disownment" to explain the "Disciplinary Process" (where disownment is only the last step), we have established a separate page under VirianPolicy to deal with the disciplinary process.
Do you support the rules outlined in David's message Here comes the sheriff?
The disciplinary process inherit's the "Sheriffs powers" at an administrative level by delegation.
[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[/url]
Finally, the period during which an appeal may not be reconsidered was extended by a vote requested by Casey, and because of that is included in the authorizations.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #64 on: 2003-10-07 20:44:31 » |
|
[Hermit]
We are talking about:
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/DisciplinaryProcess
This document contains authorizations via three votes, all referenced at the top of the page:
Should the CoV accept the policy of disownment as documented at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment
This is of course the most important one as it established the process, powers and methodology. Rather than pointing people to a page on "Disownment" to explain the "Disciplinary Process" (where disownment is only the last step), we have established a separate page under VirianPolicy to deal with the disciplinary process.
[rhinoceros]
I don't see it that way, because that would mean I could write a page titled VirusOperation and put the "WikiAccepted" seal on the top, inherited from DisciplinaryProcess, inherited from Disownment.
Of course, you are a virian in good standing as well, so your explanation has its weight too.
[Hermit]
Do you support the rules outlined in David's message Here comes the sheriff?
The disciplinary process inherit's the "Sheriffs powers" at an administrative level by delegation.
[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[/url]
Finally, the period during which an appeal may not be reconsidered was extended by a vote requested by Casey, and because of that is included in the authorizations.
[rhinoceros]
I can't quite make the "inheritance" inference, but... ditto.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #65 on: 2003-10-07 21:01:52 » |
|
[Rhinoceros] I don't see it that way, because that would mean I could write a page titled VirusOperation and put the "WikiAccepted" seal on the top, inherited from DisciplinaryProcess, inherited from Disownment.
[Hermit] You could only do that if your proposed Operations page, was agreed to by the council in discussion (bear in mind that Wiki development is a consensual and cooperative nomicon-like process) and contained no powers or processes that did not already exist. Naturally, none of this would be possible if DavidLucifer were not delegating these powers anyway (As a slightly Luminous chap put it recently, you don't have root on Lucifer).
[Hermit] Look carefully at the DisownmentPage as it was when voted and at the Sheriffs Rules on the BBS as accepted. Then look again at the Disciplinary process page. You will see that no powers not already provided by the Disownment process and Sheriffs Rules are asserted. The disciplinary process as documented could be implemented totally under the disownment rules, but are intended to provide a clarification and process guidelines and avoid the negative aurora of "Disownment".
[Hermit]
[Rhinoceros] Of course, you are a virian in good standing as well, so your explanation has its weight too.
[Hermit] Why thank-you.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #66 on: 2003-10-07 21:04:30 » |
|
It looks like we may have to clarify these processes and revote on them as
a package. This should not worry anyone who knows the policies are sound.
As noted elsewhere, emergency measures agreed upon to meet a situation -
Joe's flooding - are now presented as fixed policies and much is being made
of what the votes taken at that time meant. I think they ought to be
reviewed before we fix them as cardinal policies.
Incidentally, I did not vote at the time because I had decided to quite the
CoV until the situation righted itself. I also saw the new system as purely
experimental toy (in beta) rather than an instrument of policy making.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 08 October 2003 01:21
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of
Virusgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #67 on: 2003-10-07 21:40:52 » |
|
[rhinoceros] I don't see it that way, because that would mean I could write a page titled VirusOperation and put the "WikiAccepted" seal on the top, inherited from DisciplinaryProcess, inherited from Disownment.
[Hermit] You could only do that if your proposed Operations page, was agreed to by the council in discussion (bear in mind that Wiki development is a consensual and cooperative nomicon-like process) and contained no powers or processes that did not already exist. Naturally, none of this would be possible if DavidLucifer were not delegating these powers anyway (As a slightly Luminous chap put it recently, you don't have root on Lucifer).
[rhinoceros 2]
But there was no virian council involved in the DisciplinaryProcess document. Only a WikiApproved label on top...
Ah, I think I get it. You mean Lucifer gave approval for the WikiApproved seal on that document by the sheriff's law, isn't that so?
[Hermit] Look carefully at the DisownmentPage as it was when voted and at the Sheriffs Rules on the BBS as accepted. Then look again at the Disciplinary process page. You will see that no powers not already provided by the Disownment process and Sheriffs Rules are asserted. The disciplinary process as documented could be implemented totally under the disownment rules, but are intended to provide a clarification and process guidelines and avoid the negative aurora of "Disownment".
[rhinoceros 2]
Ah, I see. There has been some swapping between the two documents. But doesn't that create a problem when it happens after a vote? Some could have objections to the use of some particular phrases, for example.
[rhinoceros] Of course, you are a virian in good standing as well, so your explanation has its weight too.
[Hermit] Why thank-you.
[rhinoceros 2]
Dont mention it 
Seriously now, that was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment on virians with high reputation making the interpretations in the "disciplinary process". Not that I disagree. In many cases it will just have to be so.
|
|
|
|
|
ElvenSage
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 288
Reputation: 7.48
Rate ElvenSage
Think for yourself, question authority.
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #68 on: 2003-10-08 01:20:14 » |
|
I have been busy, I have a couple tests in college. They override doing anything here at the CoV. I have to be heading to bed because I have a test in 8 hours and I need sleep. The rest of the say will be spent with my significant other, as well a programming a c program for one of my classes.. So I just do not have the time for this right now and it'll have to wait untill atleast Thursday.
|
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils
See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do.
Just stay with me, safe and ignorant,
Go back to sleep
Go Back to sleep
|
|
|
ElvenSage
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 288
Reputation: 7.48
Rate ElvenSage
Think for yourself, question authority.
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #69 on: 2003-10-08 01:26:11 » |
|
Also I wish to point out that HALF... YES HALF the people on the reputation system are NOT ACTIVE here.
Around 20 of them have a less then 50% of the people voted for.
Around 10-15 of those have less then 20%...
|
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils
See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do.
Just stay with me, safe and ignorant,
Go back to sleep
Go Back to sleep
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #70 on: 2003-10-10 23:34:01 » |
|
After taking all the arguments into careful consideration and consulting several esteemed members of the congregation I have removed the WikiAccepted status from DisciplinaryProcess page. The document may be good summary or interpretation of the results of other votes, but it cannot be attributed the WikiAccepted status under the current rules given that the document was written after the referenced votes.
As the last scheduled chat showed there is still a lot of support for a process to deal with conflict resolution and I have little doubt that the current document can be ratified by a future vote (perhaps with some modifications, especially the name which seems to have caused more confusion than necessary). In any case, whatever rules we adopt to govern ourselves cannot be imposed, they must be accepted willingly by the congregation and that is what the Meridion system is designed to do.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
