--C9--C9--Discussion thread--C9--C9--

[Walter]

Since the WM and the staff have ventured into suggesting the idea of a C9 (which should represent the "missing link" between membership and staff, or the "House of Commons" of this forum, I think it appropriate to discuss this idea and it's realization here as well.

This thread is intended to be the proper place:

A) to discuss the idea in general and a suitable name for this "institution",
B) to discuss the process of choosing and installing it,
C) to discuss what the duties and the rights of this institution should be (from the standpoint of the membership) and
D) to apply or to suggest people who should apply.


Removed a bad link

[Beorn]

So far, I'm not so sure on how we're going to do any of this, or even if it will be left open to the membership. For now, feel free to suggest things on this thread, but keep in mind that the entire thing is up to WM.




NOTE TO ALL USERS!: If you wish to discuss and suggest ideas for The Council of Nine, post it on this thread. If you wish to continue the dispute that I've tried to clean up, post it here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5436)

[Walter]

I am perfectly aware that the whole C9 project is in a hypothetical state by now, but the WM and you have already made this idea public. And, you - the staff - are a couple of days ahead in pondering such an idea, hence I feel it would be only fair if we - the members - try to catch up some - "ideawise", that is... ;)

[Elbereth]

First of all I would like to express my full support for this very innovative idea. I can understand how difficult the process is to ban a member from the forum, because I recently got a taste at how stressing it can be for the moderators to deal with a banned member who appeals his/her case outside of the forum walls.

As for suggestions for the C9:

I have very little at the momment, as I realize that this idea is still in its conception. However, I believe that the members of this group should not be allowed any other special privilages outside of their duties to the Council of Nine. I would also suggest that there should be possible term limits for the council members, which I hope would prevent jealousy amongst the forum members and allow the council to remain an unbiased jury of their peers.

[Beorn]

I believe that the members of this group should not be allowed any other special privilages outside of their duties to the Council of Nine.

WM said: "There's a difference between superiority and authority. A member of this new council would have some measure of authority over the conduct of the membership, but would not be superior to the membership in any way."

I like the idea of terms....


I'm merging these threads....

[Walter]

Whoa, we've been moved to the "House of Lords...

Elbereth, I agree totally that membership in the C9 should not go together with ANY privilegues. But the fact, that the idea is still in conception should not prevent us lowly members from doing some "brainstorming" on it too.

[Hirila]

The idea of a council is really great, I think. Perhaps some of the quarrels here could be calmed down by having a democratic institution that has the power to make decisions. I like the idea of a court were we can go and defend ourselves.
But I'm wondering if it is also meant, that people could come there and complain about things? That would be of no good IMHO, because people would complain over all and everything, plastering the Council with small, unimportant cases.
This only as another piece of brainstorimng of us "lower members" Walter called us. ;)

[Mithrandir]

As little as it matters. I fully and completely support the idea of the council. With NO privileges as everyone has made clear. I hope it does come into being.
~Mithers

[My_Precious]

I think it's a great idea. It may not only give members "a second chance" in case they break forum rules, but actually make different members communicate more, and be more patient with another members.

[ReadWryt]

I'm completely clueless about this whole concept that members who break rules should be given "Second Chances" or even get consideration for return. The fact is that the Webmaster and I take into consideration whether an individual was cognizant of the rule they broke, so the only reason in my mind, the rule breaker having been ignorant of the rule, is taken out of the loop in the first place. To me the whole idea is like pulling a carton of spoiled milk out of the fridge, sniffing it...realizing that it's gone bad, and then sticking it back in the fridge again and closing the door. You are just dooming yourself to having to do it again later...*Shrug*

[Gamil Zirak]

Aw, but if you leave the spoiled milk in the fridge long enough, you'll have cheese. I know it has nothing to do with your analogy, but it was the first thought that came to me.

[Nóm]

But I'm wondering if it is also meant, that people could come there and complain about things? That would be of no good IMHO, because people would complain over all and everything, plastering the Council with small, unimportant cases.

I think it would be a good idea to allow members to "complain" about things to the counsil. I honestly can't imagine that there would be so many complaints that the 9 would be overwelmed. I, for one, have no complaints with this forum.
I think there are members who do have complaints, and that these should have someone to complain to. A problem that seems small to one, may be important to another. I realise that every complaint made will not result in a better forum for the complainer..But: I think members will like knowing that the Webmaster and moderators are listening through the counsil of 9.

The counsil could also take the complaint or sugguestions of moderators, and be a lead for other members to follow.

The counsil could be something like a diplomatic older brother to the members.

[Rangerdave]

Ok, here's a stupid idea.

The new and improved vb forum template (or whatever it is called) will allow for password protected forums, could we then not have a section that was protected can only the mods and C9 members access.

This way, when a member's term as C9 representative is up, we simply change the password.

Just a thought.
RD

[ReadWryt]

Actually with proper diligence we wouldn't need passwords. Right now the Reading Ring is set up so that only members of it can create threads or post to it. The same thing can be done to the visibility of the forum as is the case with the E.G.B.T. . It's just a matter of remembering to remove the abilities once their term is up is all...

[Beorn]

*whispers to RW: They don't know what the E. G. B. T. is :D*

[Nóm]

Hey Beorn..
We know enough about it. It was coming up on our screens for a couple days. I wondered why that was visable to all, was that a mistake? I see that it is gone now.

[Walter]

Let me be the first to come up with a list of people I would like to suggest for the House of Commons:

Aerin
Arathin
Camille
Chrysophalax
Elbereth
HLGStrider
Legolam
tookish-girl
WonkoTheSane

aragil
Cian
Chymaera
Courtney
DGoeij
Gamil Zirak
Gothmog
Grond
Parrot
Thorin
Turgon

...and, yes, I am aware it are 20 not 18...

Edit: Aerin added...

[Beorn]

This post originally said:

There will be a thread soon to post nominations....

But, that started a dispute, which I have moved to here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5436), which explains why there is a three day pause in this thread.

[dapence]

Look, here's how choosing members for the C9 is going to work.

I plan to announce a period, perhaps two weeks or so, where people interested in becoming a member of the C9 could campaign for a post. Convince the membership that they would be a good choice to represent them.
Afterwards, a primary election would be held to allow the members to nominate 18 people for the post of C9 member. Then, perhaps another short campaign period, then the actual election.

We can modify this plan a bit to be sure, but the important point is that the members would decide who would be on the C9, not some off-site group, or other mechanism that would appoint C9 members.

As to just when this will take place is as yet undecided. I'm currently reworking the other Tolkien sites, and plan to deal with the C9 issue once that project is more or less finished. There isn't really a pressing need to establish the C9, so this delay shouldn't pose a problem.

Hopefully this post will help settle --at least a few -- disputes over this issue.

Now, Walter, RW, everyone, just calm down.

[ReadWryt]

Aye-aye sir.

[Parrot]

I think the Council of Nine is a great idea.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Webmaster
Now, Walter, RW, everyone, just calm down.I will, because what caused me to come back and what's still keeping me here is what represents the value of this forum: the many great members this forum has, some of which I have become friends with...

[Adrastea]

Walter you wanted members to speak up so they can decide on what the C9 does and how much power it is allowed so I will now give my two cents.

I am going to take a line from Spiderman.

"With great power come great responsabilty".

Yes I think the C9 is an excellent idea, as long as they realise they are really no better then all the other members on the forum. Yes I agree Walter that sometimes the Mods seem to like taking control but really that is what they are there for.
I like the idea of having the number of 9 better then 12. And I think the C9 should consist of different ages.
The idea of C9 seems to be moving forward so maybe someone should write a post soon, with what the C9 do, don't, can, can't do so when election time comes we will have a better understanding of what the C9 is so we can choose the better people to do it.

[dapence]

Walter, you need a shave. :)

[Walter]

Originally posted by Webmaster
Walter, you need a shave. :) You know what? You've got a point there ;)

P.S.: Mind if I'm doing it on my own? I tend to be a little discomforted when someone else is approaching my throat with a razorblade.. :)

[Walter]

Adrastea,

I see the C9 as a tool to improve communication between membership and staff. What exactly the duties or rights or purpose of the C9 will be, is not yet decided. What we already agree upon is, that participating in the C9 must not lead to personal privilegues for those members who are in the C9.

At the moment the staff is pondering the tasks of the C9 and so are we- the members. The decision, which we will have to make first is: whom of the members do we trust enough to represent our interests in the best possible way.

The decisions what the C9 will be able to do and what not, will then be subject of discussion, first amongst staff and membership, then between those two. And finally the WM will decide how much of this all he will grant us...


I just hope I put that well...

[DGoeij]

Personally I'm more in favor of Adrastea's idea. First the overall job-description of the C9 must be more clear. Not into the tiniest detail, but enough to make clear what its members will be needing to do, and not to do.
That way, one can make better judgement if he or she wishes to put themselves forward as candidates, and voters can have a clearer picture of whom they wish to vote for.

[Walter]

Well, DGoeij, what we have so far, isn't all that much...

From the WM I have gathered so far:

1) To act as mediator for disputes, ideas, suggestions, and other related matters

2) Major disputes and other critical issues would still be dealt with by the Moderators

3) To act as or take part in a jury which decides the fate of a member who is about to be banned

4) To promote forum activities


From the members I have gathered so far:

1) To collect complaints and defend ourselves

2) To settle disputes and take away frustrations and thereby prevent flamewars

The rest of the suggestions on both sides were dealing with operative details rather than primary tasks of the C9...

----
P.S.: From RD I am gathering that he would like to see some mud-wrestling and from RW that I should *#@!x...

[DGoeij]

Actually I think these are THE primary tasks of a Council like this. Giving room for complaints and explanations in a more public and official way. Moderators need to moderate. And thank the lord they do that. But sometimes they do things people do not understand or even find very annoying. It would be for the benefit of both the annoyed member and the moderator(s) that the disagreement can be openly discussed, in a suitable time and place, under the guidance of a 'independent' third party.
It's amazing, but I have seen many times how people just speaking up in the right setting let go of tons of slumbering frustrations in the most civilized manner. It's rather impossible to make everybody happy, but it sure helps to let people explain their unhappines.

[Grond]

Just posting here so I'll subscribe to the thread. I want to make sure I have a ring side seat for the mud wrestling I hear is going to take place soon.

As for the basic premise for the C9... I think it is great as long as it does not restrict that actions of the moderators. Having been one in the past, I can vouch that it is not an easy job and having another nine people looking over your shoulder will make the job even harder to perform.

RW, I don't much agree with your sour milk analogy. I use sour milk all the time in baking. (Yes I bake!) So... just because the milk sours doesn't mean that it has plainly gone bad. The "going bad" aspect would be an opinion. Your opinion as to sour might vary from mine. One of the great things I see about the C9 would be to offer more input on "behavior issues" of forum members. That way we wouldn't have just one or two people determining when the "milk has soured to the point where it's not worth keeping in the fridge."

"I am the eggman.
I am the eggman.
I am the Walrus..... koo koo katchoo"

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Grond

As for the basic premise for the C9... I think it is great as long as it is not restrict that actions of the moderators. Having been one in the past, I can vouch that it is not an easy job and having another nine people looking over your shoulder will make the job even harder to perform.


IMO, that is exactly what the C9 shouldn't do. I post here on this forum in the assumption that every moderator does the best he/she can, and works by the rules of this forum. I can imagine what a difficult job it is, and I think they do it great.
But people are people and can make mistakes. Or they don't even make a mistake, but still a member disagrees with their actions. IMO, it is only then that the C9 is to come into 'action', by the request of the member or the moderator, to give a seriously thought out and independent opinion on the matter.
This I prefer above a grumbling member who makes references to the event in several unrelated threads and seriously annoys fellow members and moderators, who wonder what the fuss is about.

[Beorn]

I have split the dispute that took place in this thread into this thread (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5436).

If you wish to continue the dispute, do it in that thread. If you wish to discuss the C9, do it in this thread.

[ReadWryt]

That way we wouldn't have just one or two people determining when the "milk has soured to the point where it's not worth keeping in the fridge."

Fine, does that mean that the C9 will recieve all the "Reported Post" mailings, have their PM Boxes filled with the forwarded complaints about an abusive member and get sent all the mail Mods get complaining about the same, or am I jumping the gun here?


I like the idea of having the number of 9 better then 12.

So do I, no Tie Votes in the case of decision making...

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Fine, does that mean that the C9 will recieve all the "Reported Post" mailings, have their PM Boxes filled with the forwarded complaints about an abusive member and get sent all the mail Mods get complaining about the same, or am I jumping the gun here?

Do you really believe that to be a nessicity? I hope not.

And I agree on the uneven number too, as RW says, no tied votes.

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Fine, does that mean that the C9 will recieve all the "Reported Post" mailings, have their PM Boxes filled with the forwarded complaints about an abusive member and get sent all the mail Mods get complaining about the same, or am I jumping the gun here?Not at all RW. I thought I made it clear in my post that the moderator function shouldn't be effected in this way. One of the C9's functions (I would hope) would be to aid the moderators and WM in making decisions about the trouble makers of which you speak. Once a moderator identifies a member who is out of line, the C9 would intervene to attempt to recoup the person. If rehabilitation failed, banning would ensue.

[Maedhros]

I have to applaud to the Webmaster for this idea. I think it will bring more "harmony" to the forum.
I personally think that the Moderators here are fair, and personally I have no problem with the current system.

[ReadWryt]

Well it seems to me that anybody involved in the decision as to who should be removed from the forum should be involved in the whole thing is all, at least in so far as the number of complaints being brought to the attention of the staff is concerned. I think that it became later evident to the membership the collective amount of trouble Ulairi made on the forum, but I still do not think that anybody but the staff really had the whole picture because I keep from time to time hearing talk about letting him back in here and I suspect, and this is only speculation, that were they to have seen all the PMs, Emails and Reported Posts generated by his antics they might not be so quick to discount the actions of the staff toward him as simply being some "authoritarian head trip"...

[Ancalagon]

Personally, I think members who commit 'crimes' against the forum and its members should be dealt with initially by the moderators as is currently the case, then after they have had 3 warnings/strikes, they must go to the C9 to plead their case. The moderators of course will defend themselves for wanting to remove the individual. The C9 should make a judgement on the length of ban or relevant punishment the member should receive.

However, if the case against the individual is so extreme that it simply warrants swift removal by the WM or UM, then no-one is in a position to argue that. However, I feel that in order for us to be truly fair, it is essential the moderators record and transcribe all issues relating to the individual. If we then need to defend our reasons, we can use this as evidence, something that was seriously lacking in the past, simply because it was removed without trace after it happened.

I also favour a separate closed section open to the C9 in which to discuss their business. However, I do not agree that this is closed to Moderators for the simple fact that every member of this forum must still be held accountable for their actions. A moderators role is still to oversee the entire business of the forum, C9 or not.

Of course there will be other defined roles for the C9 which can be agreed prior to any process being started. One in particular is decisions on how improvements can be made to the forum for the better enjoyment of all members. However, it must remain that the final decision of any proposal is in the hands of the WM.

[DGoeij]

Ancalagon explained it better than I can, and I agree completely. Every member should always remain accountable for his/her actions.
But the Uliari-case is IMO a good example why a C9 would be in the benefit of the entire Forum. A more openly debate about the what and why's of his banishment could have prevented many questions.

[Walter]

I agree - almost - completely with Anc. IMO it would be better if a C9 would be involved BEFORE the 3 strikes have happened. This way a representative "institution" of members could deal with the "black sheeps" within their own rows, and maybe prevent further escalation of the situation.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Walter
I agree - almost - completely with Anc. IMO it would be better if a C9 would be involved BEFORE the 3 strikes have happened. This way a representative "institution" of members could deal with the "black sheeps" within their own rows, and maybe prevent further escalation of the situation.

You mean as a disciplinary organization rather than a decision making organization?

[Grond]

Originally posted by Beorn
You mean as a disciplinary organization rather than a decision making organization? I actually mean neither. I see the C9 as an advisory board to the moderators. It would be a tool for WM, RW and you other moderators to understand the dynamics of the forum membership. The ultimate decision on what would happen on any given issue would still be in the hands of the powers that be (WM, RW, Moderators) but at least the membership would have a representative body to allow their voice to be heard first.

My suggestion for C9 isn't one that has anything to do with running the forum. That would directly usurp the moderator's job. The C9 should simply be the voice of the people. Whether the ownership and management of the board wants to listen to those voices will be their choice.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Beorn
You mean as a disciplinary organization rather than a decision making organization? No, not a disciplinary organisation. WM has originally suggested:
Originally posted by Webmaster
Say a member breaks into a tirade and finds themselves banned from TTF. We've never had to deal with this before have we. Now, instead of being placed in a state of limbo, as a banned member currently finds themselves, said member would be reduced to having access to only one forum. There, the Moderator(s) could explain why the member was banned, and the offending member could offer explanations for their conduct. The Council of Nine could then decide what should be done. Ban the member for a period of time, reinstate the member with a warning, et cetera. Using this process, whatever fate the member receives, it is handed out by effectively a jury of their peers. If I do not mistake his words, this would imply that the C9 (quasi as a jury) would make the final decision about a members ban. The member would then not be able to blame the staff for having been banned, but rather the jury: the C9 (what a brilliant idea, btw.)

In my former post I suggested that the C9 should be involved before this happens, so that they - as well as the moderators - could try to de-escalate the situation and eventually prevent worse things - like the ban - from happening at all...

[Ancalagon]

In my former post I suggested that the C9 should be involved before this happens, so that they - as well as the moderators - could try to de-escalate the situation and eventually prevent worse things - like the ban - from happening at all...

Walter I disagree on this point. Moderators should be allowed to carry out their role in managing the forum, including individuals who disregard the forum rules. During the 3 strike period a moderator can manage a situation without it ever having to reach a stage whereby the C9 need involvement. However, during that period the moderators should build evidence against the individual so that if they reach a point where they have had 3 strikes, then we will seek a ban, based on the evidence against them.

This means the individual has access only to a single section where his/her case is discussed. The moderators will put forward their case based on their evidence, the C9 will listen to the case of the individual and a fitting time-period ban will be issued.

This will ensure that the membership outcries of foul-play by moderators are dealt with by their representatives, who can safely know that the case was managed fairly and impartially. It also avoids the finger-pointing levelled at mods for taking the unpleasant decisions that need to be made. In the past, we destroyed evidence of individual outbursts, this in itself meant we were unable to put up a suitable defence for our decisions. However, I also like the idea that the membership take ownership of the decisions for removing their fellows members if this occurs. I think it is important also that moderators actions are judged, which is why we must build a case against an individual.

The bottom line after 3 strikes is a ban, the C9 will simply decide, based on the evidence for how long. If the evidence is weak on our part, then that can be dealt with by adjudication either by WM or UM. It may be that the evidence itself is extremely weak and undeserving of any ban. However, if this is the case, I cannot imagine any Moderator coming with a poor or weak case, as it will already have been discussed in advance by us. My interpretation of a strike is a deliberate abuse of the forum rules. Then again, that is our role to decide, no-one elses.

The fact remains that it is important that we do not see a huge outcry against Moderator decisions after someone is banned. They will have to face upto their actions and justify them based on our accumulated evidence. The C9 will then make their decision. I do not envisage any appeal system either, unless it is directly to the WM, who I imagine will uphold the decision of the C9.

Of course, this is my interpretation and vision for our new utopian world forum order:)

[ReadWryt]

If someone wants therapy let them get it elsewhere. The Moderators are not Guidence Couselors here to lead people away from the path of darkness. In the past a simple warning was sufficient to get folks to stop breaking rules, and that was why the Three Strikes rule was implimented. If someone needed three warnings then it meant that the rules most likely didn't mean anything or much of anything to them. The C9 shouldn't be a "Rehabilitation" organization at all, nor should the staff be expected to take on the role of "mentor" or Counselor to advise people of why the rules are there or why people should follow them.

I'm perfectly willing to sit back and watch the C9 ejudicate over some misguided member who has broken the rules repeatedly, but I will not sit back silently when someone torques off the WebMaster to the point where he has banned them and then have a bunch of the membership cry foul because the "due process" wasn't served. There, the Moderator(s) could explain why the member was banned, and the offending member could offer explanations for their conduct. The Council of Nine could then decide what should be done. Ban the member for a period of time, reinstate the member with a warning, et cetera. Using this process, whatever fate the member receives, it is handed out by effectively a jury of their peers.

...this contains the word "banned", this means that the ejudication would not happen untill the individual was already banned in the first place. I think there have been a grand total of 6 individuals who have been banned since the latest incarnation of this board, and a good many accounts belonging to them were banned as well. 2 of them were so obvious in their actions that the entire site noticed...and I doubt that even if the C9 voted to let them back on they would be permitted to because of the broad and sweeping violations they committed, but then such a shopping list would, I would hope, discourage the Council from letting such individuals return. My point is that there are a good number of people who are active, contributing members of this forum who only recieved a warning or two in the past year. They are acting in a manner that is pleasing to their fellow members, or at least is not annoying or distracting from the enjoyment of the Forum in general, and so banning was not needed. If by the time a member has recieved three strikes, a strike not neccessarily being a warning...I've never thought of a Signature Length violation as something I would hold against someone when considering bannishment, then they have already done three quite offensive acts, the second and third in full knowlege that they have already broken a rule and that such rules exist, and so they get bannished. What possible more light could the C9 shed on the reason there are rules here and why they need to be followed then the Staff in the process of trying to get a member to stop acting badly the first three times?

No, I agree with the Web Master, should the Council wish to hear the pleas of a bannished person to decide once and for all that they should stay or go, unless they commit another offence, then that would be fine...but anybody deciding to take some person under their wing and give them "rehabilitation" or Counsel them away from getting banned in the first place is doing so of their own accord and not as a function of their Staff Status and it shouldn't be in the job description of the C9...

[Grond]

I PMed the WM for clarification on what was his vision of the C9. I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this as it is very pertinent and may clear up a lot of issues people seem to be having. I have added emphasis my self to further empahsize the important points. (My opinion.)
from Webmaster
This Council of Nine would serve as a representative body for the membership as a whole. The membership could then bring disputes, ideas, suggestions, and other related matters to the Council of Nine, who could then discuss these issues amongst themselves, and then bring final arguments to the Moderators. Major disputes and other critical issues would still be dealt with by the Moderators.This says to me that the place of the C9 is not that of a disciplinary body but one (as I tried to express in a prior post) of an advisory resource. It seems to me that banning is a major dispute and one the the C9 likely wouldn't even be involved in. I still like the idea of the populace having a voice in addressing problems on the board. If it is setup right it will be a great aid to the moderators and won't end up being another set of eyes looking over their shoulders.

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
...No, I agree with the Web Master, should the Council wish to hear the pleas of a bannished person to decide once and for all that they should stay or go, unless they commit another offence, then that would be fine...but anybody deciding to take some person under their wing and give them "rehabilitation" or Counsel them away from getting banned in the first place is doing so of their own accord and not as a function of their Staff Status and it shouldn't be in the job description of the C9... I take exception to the idea you seem to be forwarding here, RW. I again argue the C9 should be an advisory board with no real power. They should make recommendations which the moderators may act upon if they see fit. I don't think the C9 should be considered staff, else they are no longer really a part of the general membership but a part of the Uber-police! :);)

[Walter]

Grond, did you notice that the "clearification" of the WM looks faintly similar to what Beorn quoted in the very first post about the C9 in News&Announcements?

[Ancalagon]

Walter, I see you have finally shaved and had a good nights sleep;)

IMHO, there are varying degrees of offensiveness or flagrant disregard for the rules.

There are immediate banning incidents that include what must be termed 'serious', for example; death threats, threats of sexual violence, physical threats etc. These belong firmly in the realm of RW and WM, and are not even up for debate.

Then there are ill-mannered rebukes, derogatory comments, rude or abrupt remarks made towards individuals. Which in my opinion are not to be termed 'serious' enough for immediate banning, but serious enough to warrant a strike against them. Three similar such strikes should result in a banning with access only to the C9 chambers, whereby a suitable term is administered, that and all the other stuff I said earlier.

Now, if I am correct, this is generally the same as what the WM first indicated when the idea was put forward. My own reasons for supporting it is to avoid the countless threads and threats of exodus that followed previous instances when it was not dealt with in this manner. Too many chances were given, evidence removed as soon as it occured and eventually a huge outburst of individuals who did not possess any facts, but were happy to point the finger at the mods.

With the C9, it does not become a matter of two or three personalities coming to a head, but it ensures a process is followed that allows Moderators to put forward their reasons, the member receives their ban and the remaining forum membership can be satisfied that the matter was dealt with fairly by their elected representatives.

The more I talk about it, the more I love the idea, it is groundbreaking in any forum. BTW, you can all feel free to comment because I get the feeling I am on 'ignore' when I take this stance.

[aragil]

I'll offer some support Anc, as I also love the idea and think it would be groundbreaking (in a very positive way) for a web forum.

Anyway, I see the most usefull function of the C9 purely as helping the moderators deal with rogue members. IMO, other proposed duties (such as discussion of additions to the website) could quite easily stay open to the membership as a whole, in the form of polls in the Entmoot forum, etc. Of course, it could be that I just don't understand the other proposed duties because I'm concentrating so much on the 'judicator' aspect, which I find very interesting.

One reason I like this aspect so much is because I see it as mirroring the US (and doubtlessly other) government's division of power between the executive and judicial branches. I think this is a very good idea, as some members may resent the fact that those who police the website also get to expel members at their own discression. Not to say this is a bad model, but I do think that the seperation of power is a better model.

Drawing on what Anc said about "a matter of two or three personalities coming to a head", this is where I see the C9 being most useful. On these boards the moderators are allowed to post their opinions along with the rest of the membership. While I don't think this is a bad idea (and is probably the norm on web forums), it does have the drawback that clashes of opinion can often occur between mods and members. This is human nature, and I certainly don't see any reason to try and surpress differences of opinion between anyone on a forum. But I think that the more diffuse these differences of opinion become in the event of banning consideration, the better. The C9 has the benefit of being a large-ish body, and, as it would be popularly elected and (hopefully) limited to terms, I think that banning decisions by the council would be much less likely to be perceived by the membership as heavy-handed or based on personal bias. This would have two positive benefits- the moderators could post their opinions in the forum without fear that members would avoid discussion simply because of the moderator's status; and members would be able to discuss various topics with moderators without fear of accumulating ill-will from the mods which later might come into play in a banning decision. While this sort of situation could still arise between a Council-ler and a member, the effect would be much less because of term limits and the fact that a banning decision would require more than 1/1 votes.

Anyway, that's my opinion, not sure if I stated it clearly or if I really understand some of the consequent issues, but I thought I'd throw it out there all the same.

ps. If the sole purpose of the C9 was to pass judgement on fellow members, how about calling it the "Ring of Doom" after the manner of the Valar? Or, if the council would have other duties, how about simply "The Fellowship", as that would have a very positive (IMO) connotation and would be easier for some members (myself included here) to catch the Middle-earth reference?

[Beorn]

Originally quoted by Grond
This Council of Nine would serve as a representative body for the membership as a whole. The membership could then bring disputes, ideas, suggestions, and other related matters to the Council of Nine, who could then discuss these issues amongst themselves, and then bring final arguments to the Moderators. Major disputes and other critical issues would still be dealt with by the Moderators.
Originally quoted by Mike
This Council of Nine would serve as a representative body for the membership as a whole. The membership could then bring disputes, ideas, suggestions, and other related matters to the Council of Nine, who could then discuss these issues amongst themselves, and then bring final arguments to the Moderators. Major disputes and other critical issues would still be dealt with by the Moderators.

hmmmmmmm.....

I like Anc's view on the C9, although his view on serious offences hasn't occurred yet (knock on wood). I think serious would be more like personal attacks, like 'Take you and your mediocre intellect out of my thread'. :D

[Grond]

I knew that looked familiar. :);)

[Rangerdave]

And now its time for Dave's stupid question of the week.

Should the C9 operate as an independant organization such as the US Congress, or should it be more of an Estate General type set up?

The difference being that if the C9 operates independantly, it will be a constantly functioning part of the forum with prescribed meetings and agendas. If it acts more like the Estates General, it will always be there, but will only become active when called upon by the Webmaster to deliberate specific topics. I personally prefer the Estate General Model, but then what do I know.

let me hear your ideas.

RD

[Parrot]

Easy Beorn, me and my mediocre intellect just got here, sheesh! Anyway, I would concur with those who advocate this council in mainly an advisory capacity. It seems to me that the real value of a council like this would be, provided it is comprised of a sufficiently diverse group, the ability to get a good idea of the general forum population’s feelings or ideas on a given issue or person. I think it was Grond who used the word “liaison” and I believe that is very apropos. Their main duty should be the sampling of opinions from different slices of the membership and relaying those general impressions to the WM and Moderators, who would still retain the lion’s-share of decision making duties. However, Aragil’s suggestion of the council acting in some form of, if not oversight really, then at least mediation, in conflicts between general members and moderators is excellent. As someone who does not necessarily wish to break the rules, but maybe does test their elasticity from time to time, I would really like to see this kind of check-and-balance.

[ReadWryt]

I'm thinking of giving up typing, so I'll post this as if it were a conversation... Originally posted by Webmaster
Say a member breaks into a tirade and finds themselves banned from TTF. We've never had to deal with this before have we. Now, instead of being placed in a state of limbo, as a banned member currently finds themselves, said member would be reduced to having access to only one forum. There, the Moderator(s) could explain why the member was banned, and the offending member could offer explanations for their conduct. The Council of Nine could then decide what should be done. Ban the member for a period of time, reinstate the member with a warning, et cetera. Using this process, whatever fate the member receives, it is handed out by effectively a jury of their peers. Originally posted by Grond
This says to me that the place of the C9 is not that of a disciplinary body but one (as I tried to express in a prior post) of an advisory resource. It seems to me that banning is a major dispute and one the the C9 likely wouldn't even be involved in. I still like the idea of the populace having a voice in addressing problems on the board. If it is setup right it will be a great aid to the moderators and won't end up being another set of eyes looking over their shoulders. Originally posted by ReadWryt
...No, I agree with the Web Master, should the Council wish to hear the pleas of a bannished person to decide once and for all that they should stay or go, unless they commit another offence, then that would be fine...but anybody deciding to take some person under their wing and give them "rehabilitation" or Counsel them away from getting banned in the first place is doing so of their own accord and not as a function of their Staff Status and it shouldn't be in the job description of the C9...

[Ancalagon]

Beorn said; I think serious would be more like personal attacks, like 'Take you and your mediocre intellect out of my thread'

Anc said; Then there are ill-mannered rebukes, derogatory comments, rude or abrupt remarks made towards individuals. Which in my opinion are not to be termed 'serious' enough for immediate banning, but serious enough to warrant a strike against them. Three similar such strikes should result in a banning with access only to the C9 chambers, whereby a suitable term is administered, that and all the other stuff I said earlier.

So Beorn you agree with me on what is 'serious,' but not 'instant banning serious'?

[Beorn]

Whoops, misread your post :o

[DGoeij]

Be a decent guy, go to work, and come back to see that an entire debate has unfolded.
Where to start?
I agree with Grond's opinion, that the C9 only comes into play when called upon, by either members or moderators. The most important part IMHO, is still that decisions, which will stay staff-desicions, can be explained here, in case storms of protests occur. And, as Walter explains, moderators can also bring up 'rogue'-members in an earlier stage. On the one hand it could prevent them getting banned, and since the warnings have been quite public, everybody knows the problem exists.

The original idea of the WM becomes clearer too. It should also be a body that gathers and discusses wishes from the members concerning different aspects of the Forum? If I remember the talks about how the RP-guilds should be operating, I think the current system works fine, but maybe I'm mistaken. And, come to think of it, it is a task that would fit a C9. Would that mean that 'Entmoot' would become the primary domain of a C9?

[Walter]

Originally posted by DGoeij
Would that mean that 'Entmoot' would become the primary domain of a C9? According to my opinion, not at all. I think the Entmoot is a good place to discuss ideas, wishes, complaints of the member-community as a total. I - for my part - would not like to see a circle being formed, that gets the smell of "just another forum-elite". Whether such discussions result eventually to the C9 to becoming active and quasi "officially" make a "petition" to the staff or the WM is a different story...

[DGoeij]

No, I do realize I expressed myself quite unclear. I should have said, 'concern' instead of 'domain'.
I meant that issues that are generally discussed in the Entmoot, and IMHO should be discussed there in the future, are to become a big part of the C9 in that they filter out the members wishes/ideas to propose them to the WM and moderators.
Still, in this matter I think the current system in the Entmoot works just fine.

[Walter]

DGoeij, I couldn't agree more...

[Chymaera]

A Council of Nine, Should not be a Watchdog for the Moderators. If anything it should be a suppliment to them. The Council could help determine what a "Strike" is, and inform any violators that they are out of complaince, if their act cleans up over a set period (not too too long) then they have a clean record.

If the non-compliance continues, we go to "Strike Two", the violator is again informed and given a choose clean up or leave. Cleaning up probation can be a fairly long time depending on circumstances.

"Strike Three" your OUT of here, Do not pass go Do not collect $200. Return to sender.

We should use use Harad and Ulairi as the bench mark.(both sound like that they might have been booted earlier then they were.)

Well that is my sticking my nose into things

P.S. apologize, I seem to have only read the first page so this whole post might just be irrelevent.
So Solly ;)

[Khamul]

Heres my vote for 9:

Elbereth
aragil
Chymaera
Gamil Zirak
Gothmog
Grond
Parrot
Turgon
Cian

[HLGStrider]

Ooooooooooooohhhhhhh...

In place of a dark lord you will have nine c's and they will not be dark but beautiful as the morning... All will love them and dispair...

Elgee disappears in a poof of smoke. Everyone looks up and says "What they heck was that?" Elgee comes back blushing... Urg... where was I? Did we decide anything? I have a head ache...

Boy, I'd like to be one of these C9 things... It'd be fun!!! Of course, I'm not sure what you guys decided... so I will nominate other people...

1. Grond
2. Aragil... he's sensible.
3. hmmm... Someone nice.... Aerin.
4. Tar Alcamine, perhaps...or is she a mod?
5. Kementari... we need some writers around...
6. Goroshirma perhaps...
7. Gamil Zirak?
9. Elbereth.

[Chymaera]

Three Rings for the ÜberModerator under the sky,
Seven for the Moderators in their halls of stone,
Nine for the Councilors doomed to die,
One Ring for the Webmaster on his dark throne,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, And in the darkness bind them.
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.


So does mean that RW gets four rings
;) :D

well he does quadruple duty :D

[Khamul]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Ooooooooooooohhhhhhh...

you will have nine c's


1. Grond
2. Aragil... he's sensible.
3. hmmm... Someone nice.... Aerin.
4. Tar Alcamine, perhaps...or is she a mod?
5. Kementari... we need some writers around...
6. Goroshirma perhaps...
7. Gamil Zirak?
9. Elbereth.

Number 8? Or is that kind of a self-vote?;)

[Ciryaher]

4. Tar Alcamine, perhaps...or is she a mod?

How can a person with over 3000 posts not know who all the Mods are?!?! :eek: :confused: Of course she's not a mod! Eru save us!

[HLGStrider]

Well, Cir, it is obvious... I always contact the mod's by alphabetical order and so the only mod that matters to me is Ancalgon.... And of course you for RPG's...

Anyway, she was a mod when I signed up... or maybe it was Kementari who was a mod when I signed up... and you guys switch things around too often... confuses...

Dang... I knew I'd forgotten someone... an Eight... urg... this is too much pressure.

Parrot... he/she is an agreeable character.

[Ciryaher]

The only mods are Ancalagon, Beorn, me, Lantarion, Readwryt, and Talierin.

Grond was a mod, but is no longer.

[Ancalagon]

I always contact the mod's by alphabetical order and so the only mod that matters to me is Ancalgon

That's because I am so nice and approachable:)

[Walter]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
That's because I am so nice and approachable:) Why yes, of course *cough, cough*

[HLGStrider]

That must be it...

Approachable dragons.. Are you vegetarian?

[Parrot]

The only mods are Ancalagon, Beorn, me, Lantarion, Readwryt, and Talierin.

Grond was a mod, but is no longer.
Uhh...Cir.... RangerDave's gonna be crushed.

[HLGStrider]

poor, Darling, RD...

[Parrot]

Yeah, it's a good thing he is also "nice and approachable"..... at least as trained killers go.....

[Walter]

Originally posted by Parrot
Yeah, it's a good thing he is also "nice and approachable"..... at least as trained killers go..... Could ya please refrain from such remarks...I just spit a mouthfull of some precious old Cragganmore all over my keyboard and desktop...

[ReadWryt]

...it could have been worse Walter, it would have burned more coming out of the nose...:)

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
The only mods are Ancalagon, Beorn, me, Lantarion, Readwryt, and Talierin.

Grond was a mod, but is no longer.

HEY! What am I? chopped liver? Originally posted by Parrot

Uhh...Cir.... RangerDave's gonna be crushed.
Singing
Nobody likes me
Everybody hates me
I think I'll go eat worms.

Long tall skinny ones
Short fat juicy ones
Ooey Gooey Yummy Chewy Worms

Thats better
RD

[HLGStrider]

That's an interesting picture, RD...

[Ciryaher]

*puts on his matter-of-fact expression*

Of course I didn't include RD, because he is our Top-Secret, Not-Quite-Completely-Secret Weapon against antidisestablishmentarianism. So ha! *quietly and humbly worships his RD altar and brings him a sacrifice of Harold glasses*

[Chymaera]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
*puts on his matter-of-fact expression*

Of course I didn't include RD, because he is our Top-Secret, Not-Quite-Completely-Secret Weapon against antidisestablishmentarianism. So ha! *quietly and humbly worships his RD altar and brings him a sacrifice of Harold glasses*

Antidisestablishmentarianism is of course the longest non-technical word in the English language, being used correctly in the only sentence meant for it, besides this one, of course.;) :p

[ReadWryt]

That's funny because until now I had never thought about pnumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis as being a technical word, but I guess you are correct!

[Walter]

Too bad none here understands

Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajüten-
fensterputzerwasserkübelgriffüberzugshalterung,

for it's not a technical word either...


actually its just one word, but I had to hyphenate because the dratted software wouldn't allow a word of that length it seems...

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Walter
Too bad none here understands

Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajüten-
fensterputzerwasserkübelgriffüberzugshalterung,

for it's not a technical word either...


actually its just one word, but I had to hyphenate because the dratted software wouldn't allow a word of that length it seems...

I think he just typed random letters...anyone else? Considering that neither RW's or Walter's appear on Google...I'd bet on it...:D

[Rangerdave]

Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajüten-
fensterputzerwasserkübelgriffüberzugshalterung,

Thats German for "Brewer's Droop" right?

And pnumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis is the scientific term for the dried up crud that collects on the tops of Ketchup bottles I believe.
:D :D :D :D :D :rolleyes:

I love to concept of taking mutiple words and mashing them together to make new ones.

RD

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Walter
Too bad none here understands

Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajüten-
fensterputzerwasserkübelgriffüberzugshalterung,


Something to do with a captains cabins-windon on the Donau river, but I guess I still miss half, there's water involved too.:confused:

Linkerachtervrachtwagenbandventieldopjesverkopers-
vakbondsleiderassistenten

But I think your dutch is even worse than my german.

[Grond]

I'm glad to see that even our Moderators and Super-moderators can get side tracked on a thread. ;)

[HLGStrider]

To me it is encouraging... increases my hopes of being elected... VOTE FOR ELGEE!!! After all... how many people are as sweet as me... :D

[Chymaera]

:( OK every one stop this I am disturbing eveyone around with my havin' to roll around on the floor laughing, I think I just pulled a muscle. I bet I'll have bruises tommorow too.;) :D :D :D :D
and it was Cir who started it.


But seriously I would like to put foward that if it is decided to have a C9 that the first 9 people to volunteer for the job should be disqualified. These people are not to be trusted having some hidden agenda of their own.:p ;) :D

pick me, pick me!

[HLGStrider]

My two goals are to amass a huge fortune and have the letter "B" removed from the English Alphaet... (Notice, alphaet). I know one of these goals is a little farfetched...

Who really wants a huge fortune anyway?

NO MORE B!!!

[Chymaera]

Elgee you have reveiled yourself for what you are!

A Steve Martin fan, talk about hidden agendas.

[Rangerdave]

No B's?

That would leave us with Yogi Ear and his young friend Oo Oo.

That won't work.

RD

[HLGStrider]

HELP ME I'VE EEN FOUND OUT!!!

he he he...

[Beorn]

If ($userdata["userid"] == 697) {
preg_replace("/(b|B)/", "^\s\w", $HTTP_POST_VARS["message"]);
}

If WM stuck that in the code, all of your Bs would be removed...unless you wrote ß...but we won't need that, will we?...

[HLGStrider]

oooooooooooh... he has the power.. the power to an the b's... ad b's... anish the b's... rutilize the b's...

[Rangerdave]

BEWARE!

Behold barbaric baboons blatantly bemoaning bombastic buffoonery; belittling brave beneficial B's before brandishing bilious banter by banally becoming bulwarks. Brazenly belying bravado beneath baited breath. Beginning by ballyhooing benign bunk by-and-by.


BALDERDASH!

Bye Bye

[Chymaera]

Bravo! ;) :D

[Grond]

FOFLMAO!!!! Touche!!! Rangerdave.

[Parrot]

Okay, riddle me this gang; if RangerDave is in charge of fighting antidisestablishmentarianism, does that make him a proponent of antiantidisestblishmentarianism, prodisestablishmentarianism, antiestablishmentarianism, or D, none of the above?

Actually, for some interesting info on the word go here (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mantidis.html).

[HLGStrider]

Sigh... Elgee stands alone without B's...

[Elbereth]

I don't believe that Elgee is being very sincere about her hatred of all things B.

*look at her signature...I count two b's "Bandits" and "be"*

[ReadWryt]

I misspelled it, it's actually pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis and it's the medical term for Black Lung disease...

[Beorn]

Shame on you RW! What kind of person can't spell pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis off the top of their heads?

[Elu Thingol]

As long as you are discussing long words I thought I should bring up

TETRAMETHYLDIAMINOBENZHYDRYLPHOSPHINOUS

HEPATICOCHOLANGIOCHOLECYSTENTEROSTOMIES

FORMALDEHYDETETRAMETHYLAMIDOFLUORIMUM

DIMETHYLAMIDOPHENYLDIMETHYLPYRAZOLONE

SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS

DICHLORODIPHENYLTRICHLOROETHANE

FLOCCINAUCINIHILIPILIFICATION

TRINITROPHENYLMETHYLNITRAMINE

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

PARADIMETHYLAMINOBENZALDEHYD

HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS

there is that enough?

[Chymaera]

Originally posted by Chymaera

Antidisestablishmentarianism is of course the longest non-technical word in the English language, being used correctly in the only sentence meant for it, besides this one, of course.;) :p Upon further investigation it has been found that antidisestablishmentarianism in Entish translates as the word 'but'.

Making it the shortest non-technical word in the Entish language. :p ;) :D

[Nóm]

and I thought "hoom" was the shortest...must be technical.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Elu Thingol
TETRAMETHYLDIAMINOBENZHYDRYLPHOSPHINOUS


TETRAMETHYLDIAMINOBENZHYDRYLPHOSPHINOUS...what? ... acid??? ester? aldehyde? ;)

[Ancalagon]

osseocarnisanguineoviscericartilaginonervomedullar y
could of course be included in any sentence as long as you were discussing the intricacies of the human body!
However, I like to think that we would keep latin out of this debate on the C9!

[Grond]

To any non-participating readers of this thread. This was once a useful and important discussion on a proposed council of nine who would help the WM, RW and the other moderators administer the forum in an, as yet, undetermined manner. One of the purposes of the thread was to determine what the undetermined manner was to be. It appears that those without manners are seeking to undermine the manner in which these manners are discussed. Hopefully, in the near future, GOOD manners will prevail and we will manage our POOR manners and get back into a mannered discussion on the issues at hand. ;)

[Walter]

Actually, Grond, I was rather curious if anyone would try to bring this thread back to it's original purpose, and who it would be. And I am grateful for your post, I was already beginning to wonder, who all would be seriously interested in seeing a C9 installed at all....

[Grond]

Walter, it certainly wouldn't have been those members of the establishment of the Antidisestablishmentarianism league. ;):)

[Thorin]

I haven't read the whole thing (I actually finally looked in this thread to see what it was about!). And it sounds to me that most want this C9 group to be what we as teacher's have as a discipline committee. The teacher or principal (moderators) deal with the first infractions. When the student continues the problems despite warnings and initial discipline procedures, they are sent to the discipline committee to decide their fate.

Personally, I have no problem with the Mods taking care of it all. Especially with the 3 strikes rule. I mean, come on folks, how many people who make it to the end of those 3 strikes don't deserve to be kicked out? I haven't even made it to the 1st strike and on occasion, though I've regretted it, I deserved it! Three? What do these law breakers want? A judge from here in British Columbia to come down and run the forum? :D

[Grond]

Again, I envision the C9 as a "voice of the members" where issues other than discipline may be brought forward for consideration to the WM. It could not only serve as a disciplinary review board but also be integral in coming up with more and better ways to promote the forum... new and better ways to structure the forum... new and better ways to aid the forum's management in keeping The Tolkien Forum the best Tolkien site on the web.

That is what I hope to see it develop into. :)

[Walter]

Grond, I'm not sure what to make of your last post, I mean if it could be interpreted in a way that we actually agreed on something, it sure would be reason to celebrate some - Cheers ;)

Thorin, dealing with black sheeps of the TTF family would be only one task of the C9, and certainly not the most important one either...


Edit: While I was typing you posted again, Grond, so make this the post before the last post. Oh and if you could make it keeping The Tolkien Forum the best Tolkien forum on the web I might just have to agree there as well...

[Parrot]

Yes, it is unfortunate that some inglorious ne’er-do-wells have chosen to eschew the laudable and auspicious genesis of this thread and have, alternatively, facilitated its decline into a somniferous display of sesquipedalian logorrhea, especially without the loquacious offerings of that paragon of mellifluous phraseology, Aldanil, around to really spice up this tortuous sojourn; but hey, Sh...stuff happens!

That being said, I have to echo Grond and Walter’s comments that the C9 should aspire more to empowering the general membership of the forum rather than acting as glorified hall-monitors, IMO.

[HLGStrider]

More like a lobby group than a representive or judicial body then?

To use a polical simile.

[Elu Thingol]

Well C9 would probably work but if the people on the forum aren't active voters and don't write to the representatives it won't work.

[Chymaera]

It would be would be hard to do this demoncraticaly, being the international, multiculteral group that we are.

It might just be enough to keep it it an informal town hall affair like this thread is at the moment. The interested parties seem to be here already.

[Chymaera]

Originally posted by Thorin
I What do these law breakers want? A judge from here in British Columbia to come down and run the forum? :D A BC judge only helps if you are a former Premier;) :D

[HLGStrider]

Greetings from the president, you've just been pardoned... and where's my cash?

[Aerin]

Seeing as how there is already a Council of 9 forum, I guess it's high time I post.

Although I haven't made any comments on the C9, I have read the threads about it from the beginning, and I would like to apply to be on the Council.

I don't know if those who want to be on the Council have to campaign or if that was just a random idea thrown out, but I would at least like to be considered for a position. :)

[HLGStrider]

I think several people nominated you...

I'd like the job too, but I'm not sure if I'm trustworthy.

:D

[DGoeij]

Is a job-description worked out yet?

I would consider it, if it was more clear what this C9 would have to do. I feel reluctant to start in a council with only half-considered tasks, that will fade out because of unclarity by the Forum-members in general and the members itself in particular.

[HLGStrider]

You mean they can't just sit around drinking Dr. Pepper?

By the way, anyone seen by bar?

[HLGStrider]

By the way I can't get into the elections section... Is there technical problems or are you guys just afraid of me?

:D

Maybe both...

[Beorn]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
By the way I can't get into the elections section... Is there technical problems or are you guys just afraid of me?

:D

Maybe both...

The C9 forum is locked until elections start.

[HLGStrider]

Have we made any strides in any direction?

Can the mods update me on this situation...?

[Grond]

There is no news to report at this time.

[dapence]

HLGStrider, why should we be afraid of you? ;)

Yes, the C9 is still in the works. A member in another thread brought up an interesting point. Perhaps we should ask the members if they even want the C9.

The moderators are my representatives, so I have a right to appoint them. The C9 would be the members representatives, so it might be prudent to ask the members if they even want this to begin with.

What do you think.

[Walter]

I would be curious too, maybe a poll could help to clear things up some...

[Tyaronumen]

I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to democratically express my opposition to all institutional trappings of democracy on these forums.

:D

[Walter]

Hmmm, institutional trappings of democracy where there is none, isn't that a "contradictio in adjecto"? :D

[HLGStrider]

I still like the lobby group idea...

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Walter
Hmmm, institutional trappings of democracy where there is none, isn't that a "contradictio in adjecto"? :D


Well -- YES. :)

[Goldberry344]

er, could you, perhaps, for those of us who dont know all who are nominated and such...ya....post a list of the people?? thanks.

[Ancalagon]

Goldberry, no-one as yet has been nominated or discussed as candidates for the C9. We are still unsure of how the process will work, how nominations will occur and how the whole process will eventually transpire. There are a number of other issues the Webmaster is trying to resolve first before this particular idea reaches the top of the priority list.

Please be patient, I am eager as you to see it up and running, but it must wait its turn in the pecking order of the 'to-do' list:)

[Goldberry344]

ah, well. i started reading the thread about a week ago, but then a series of sad events kept kicking me offline. when i left off, people were suggesting people. as i have to get offline now (again, before i finish reading the thread) i really just wanted to know once and for all who/what/where/when/how/why was happening. thanks.

[DGoeij]

They say patience is a virtue.

I don't know if 'they' ever waited really long for anything, but I do know the working of a 'to-do' list.:D I'll simply wait and see, the forum is still a great place to spent time.:)

[Maedhros]

I have said in the past that personally, I don't think that the creation of a council is necessary because of the quality and character of the moderators here.
One such example of this is this statement by Ancalagon:
***** is no longer a contributor on this forum and as such cannot rightly defend himself against any accusations or remarks. I would suggest that any such references made to his (or any other member/ex-members) participation in the forum cease immediately.
I think that only a coward takes shots at people who aren't here to defend themselves. I know that one such individual existed in TTF, but now I find that they are more, and that's truly a shame.
In the past, I have been at odds with Anc over issues, but I applaud his actions, and present them as an example of the correct response from a moderator.
There is only one moderator which I don't truly care here in TTF, but one out of eight isn't bad!;)

[Walter]

I would not see a C9 actually as a "counterweight" to the moderators, more like an "addition" to help making some things running even more smoothly than they do now and to reduce eventual friction between members and the mighty ones.

Maedhros, I agree with you to the point, that if all moderators would be as "moderate" ;) as Anc, there would be less need for more democracy at this forum. But if only one of the moderators shows less respect for the members and their postings - and IMO we do have one - than Anc does, then I personally would appreciate a little more democracy or - if that is unavailable - at least some more "democratic process" here.

Last night I occasionally found out that a certain moderator in one of the most popular and interesting threads after 436!!! posts - most of them on topic, meaningful as well as insightful - openly speculates to maybe "delete the whole thread" due to a few "off topic" posts. I really wonder how little the contributions of the members are respected by this moderator that he would even consider to delete a good thread with so many posts, and I think that a C9 would at least rise the "awareness" on both sides - members and staff - that for a great forum to continue to be a great one or maybe even become a better one some democratic process would be a good thing.

Btw, I think that the members should have some saying in the deletion of popular threads, which could be one of the agendas of a C9. Many members spend a lot of time and energy to make good and meaningful contributions to the forum, and having some them deleted with only a keystroke of one moderator as the result of a spontaneous whim is rather frustrating ...

[Maedhros]

Well Walter, if you put it like that I have to agree with you.:)
Btw, I think that the members should have some saying in the deletion of popular threads, which could be one of the agendas of a C9. Many members spend a lot of time and energy to make good and meaningful contributions to the forum, and having some them deleted with only a keystroke of one moderator as the result of a spontaneous whim is rather frustrating ...
You make a very good point. As for me personally, I had like 2 post deleted because i used to word rockin', and someone was offended by it.:confused:

[HLGStrider]

I'm not offended by Rockin'... but I remember the time when the auto-no-swearing-thing wouldn't let me write cocky... weird...

[DGoeij]

What's wrong with Rockin'? I thought it had something to do with the music Rock 'n Roll or was a different word for shaking. I guess it shows again I'm not native in English.:)

Indeed, the most important part of the C9 would be to increase the openness and clarity between members and staff. It's for the same reason that I like it that the warning list is in the open and the WM and mods take time to answer questions about it.

As a side note, I posted in the thread that Maedhros mentioned and was later closed by Anc. It was only later that I realised that that thread was, as Anc made clear, even worse than I thought it was. *shrug* I'm not a saint.

[Maedhros]

It was only later that I realised that that thread was, as Anc made clear, even worse than I thought it was. *shrug* I'm not a saint.
????? Meaning.

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Maedhros

????? Meaning.

Meaning the thread from which you quoted me earlier.

As for the word 'rockin', that is not what Maedhros' concerns are about, particularly in the thread he posted and that I removed, which he knows full well why I did. In addition, this has no bearing on the subject of C9 which is the intention of this thread to discuss.

[Maedhros]

Going back to topic then, I reiterate that I agree in full with all the points that Walter have made.

BTW, If at first you don't suceed, try again.;)

[DGoeij]

'Much ado about nothing' then. I'll just keep on enjoying the posting on the forum until the C9 issue has reached the number one position on the WM 'to do' list.:)

[HLGStrider]

Poor overly burdened webwaster... sigh... :(

Well, we shall wait and wait... and I hope that WM is not way too over burdened.

[ILLOTRTM]

Unfortunatley, I don't think I have a lot of fans here, so these position will probably be given to people with more..... seniority (IMO).... however, why not give it a shot? I would like to be concidered for the job too.

[Walter]

Illotrtm, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It's nearly three months now that the idea has been announced and we haven't come much further than we have been in August...

[Anamatar IV]

*twiddles thumbs* ya know in all this I still dont understand what c-9 is. Is it basically member ambassadors to the mods?:confused:

[Walter]

While you're twiddling your thumbs you could read the appropriate threads concerning the C9... ;)

[goofoofighter]

I fully intended to read the entire discussion about the C9 and take into consideration everyone's thoughts on the matter. But honestly, I began to be discouraged on the 8th page and just decided to post (even though I already forgot what I was going to say when the discussion of 'disestablishmentarienism' (or whatever it was, disestablishmentar- something) and 'hoom' arose. But I believe what I was going to discuss what that at the current moment, I view the (not yet set in stone) C9 as more of a jury. I would say that if someone did reach the three strike limit (or whatever limit is hereafter set) they can argue their purpose directly to the moderator in a One-thread restriction with the C9 acting as impartial juries that see both sides as a third party, as someone who (perhaps) hasn't seen this person's actions. But I suppose if they DID indeed get three strikes, then the C9, the perpetrator (hoping that's the right word) and the Moderator probably have already noticed the disturbence.
But what I've seen so far is that only the Moderator would be allowed to get evidence against the perpetrator for what he/she has done. How will this member feel if he/she is not allowed to also get evidence for his/her side of the story? Maybe instead of being put into a One-Thread restriction, they should only be allowed to post on the "three-strike discussion" thread, but everything else becomes just another 'read-only' file to them. They can copy (whether it be called for to be by hand, by type) or show where the piece of evidence is (by link, perhaps, or by a long explenation of which post it is or is concerned) so they have a bit of hard evidence for their side of the story. I'm absolutely positive that anyone who gave a darn about the peace status on TTF would be willing to search out their evidence so as not to be banned, but be allowed to continue.
Or maybe, if it isn't so simple, and the perpetrator is judged innocent to some degree or other, then because all of this is a dispute, the other end of the disturbance should be called for, so both sides of their story should be heard, with the C9 again acting as jury, and the Mods as judge, or vice-versa. Or maybe the C9 and Mods would come to a mutual decision of what to do with the perpetrator, or perhaps not the suspected perpetrator, but the other member (as part of the disturbance) would be found as the wrongful party, and then timed-bans or permanant bans or whatever discipline is decided will for sure be carried out on the correct misbehaving member.

I know it all sounds long and strenuous, but I think it would work. But as far as closed forums for the C9 and Mods only, isn't that giving the C9 a power that was suggested and mostly agreed with that shouldn't be? perhaps if there was to be an area where the Mods, C9, and perperating member would plead their stories, other members of TTF could see how things are being carried out, but not allowed to post, and so to them be a 'read-only' file. I think that would keep the status of the C9 and the Membership equal, open, and happy. Maybe then not so many fingers would be pointed at Mods (by the Membership) because of premature deleting of innapropriate content, and closed decisions carried out so swiftly. Then the perpetrator, the Membership, the C9, and the Mods all have an equal understanding of the incident.

It's a mouthful, but it's my sight of the C9. Maybe you'll find something of interst in here. And to think I though of the C9 at first as sort of a secondary court, like the step before supreme court, but now that I have that *looks up* my first idea is sort of outdated. :p

[Adrastea]

But as far as closed forums for the C9 and Mods only, isn't that giving the C9 a power that was suggested and mostly agreed with that shouldn't be? perhaps if there was to be an area where the Mods, C9, and perperating member would plead their stories, other members of TTF could see how things are being carried out, but not allowed to post, and so to them be a 'read-only' file. I think that would keep the status of the C9 and the Membership equal, open, and happy. Maybe then not so many fingers would be pointed at Mods (by the Membership) because of premature deleting of innapropriate content, and closed decisions carried out so swiftly. Then the perpetrator, the Membership, the C9, and the Mods all have an equal understanding of the incident.

If we use that idea about having an area where the Mods, C9 and the perpetrating member can discuss the situation what ever may it be, but the members can't post in that area. I think that will get quite out of hand. I see the forum as a family, and if one person gets accused of something then everyone will stand up for that person, even if they were in the wrong. I can see that some of the members will read what’s being discussed and go into Entmoot and post threads about their objections to what the C9 and the Mods are saying. Even if they deserve whatever the punishment maybe. And will just create more work for the mods.
Just my 2 cents..

[goofoofighter]

I see... you have a good point. But what, in the case that the rest of the membership was allowed to post to defend the person, if it would make even more of a problem than they would already have? (I have no idea if that made any sense at all) Because, I mean, some people are partners in crime, right? I don't know if we've ever had a case like that around here at TTF, but if they had enough people behind them that knew they did wrong, but stood up for them, wouldn't that work against the system, then?

[Grond]

Actually, as I see it, the C9 would be a committee of members who would forward member ideas on how to make the site better. With the new points system, I see no need for them to be involved in forum disicipline (after all, that is an administrative function). Right now, the forum, its contents and it shaping are directed by our illustrious WM, our SM and us Moderators. I can't speak for the other moderators but I know that my views on the forum would be greatly at odds with a vast majority of the members. I am a Tolkien fan, first and foremost and would like this site to focus solely on him. Allowing the members more input would give them more of a voice to agree with me (as some would) or disagree with me (as many more might).

I see it as an opportunity for the people who actually inhabit the forum to have a voice to express desires. As always, with a privately owned operation, the owner (Webmaster) will have the final say... but at least he will have heard the forums views as expressed through their nine representatives.

[Arvedui]

Actually I don't see the reason for any comittee to oversee the rulings of the Mods at all. I thought they were choosen by the WM and/or SM, and that they were overlooking the work of the Mods. If it is any need for a C9, it could perhaps be used as Grond suggests, or perhaps they could have some say as to which threads are stored in The Great Smials? (I don't know who decides this now, so this suggestion might step on somebodys toes. If so, that is not intended.):)

[Khamul]

Well, I guess we can safely call this off.:)

[HLGStrider]

Sad, isn't it?

[Walter]

R.I.P. ;)

[ILLOTRTM]

*wipes a tear out of her eye and walks slowly away* :( ;)

[HLGStrider]

Elgee sobs...

Oh well. COME TO MY ANIVERSERY PARTY INSTEAD!

On the Lighthearded Role Playing section under Elgee's Party.

I'VE BEEN ON BOARD A YEAR!

[goofoofighter]

It's too bad the C9 had to be cancelled, I honestly thought it was a good idea...

I'll be there Elgee! *lol* :D

[Wonko The Sane]

It's been cancelled?

[Talierin]

No... Goofoo's post was in December... I think we postponed it. Anyways, it's going now!

[HLGStrider]

I think you all know I'd like a seat. . .though I'm not campaigning. . .I'm not offering lollypops to people who vote for me. . .just gumdrops. . .;)

[Wonko The Sane]

Aaah...clarification. Thank you Tal.