|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:07 am
I propose the following rules to be deliberated by the membership of the guild in accordance with with the constitution of the guild [5.i.].
The motions will be presented for deliberation for the next week, during which time they can be modified, and at the end of which time the CC will have a period of one week to discuss and vote on the motions.
Motion 1:
Proposed Rule 1
The ability of the Chair and Vice Chair to appoint 'Commissars'.
Commissars are temporary moderators, appointed by either the Chair or Vice Chair of the guild. As such, they have all the rights and responsibilities of moderators including, but not limited to, the right to vote on the CC and to punish people according to the rules of the guild.
-There can only be two ( 2 ) Commissars appointed at any one time.
-The commission lasts for seven ( 7 ) days, at the end of which the member is to be demoted.
-No member of the guild can be given a commission twice in a row.
-No commissar may serve on a commission with the same member that they served with on their previous commission.
-The Chair of the guild can only appoint Commissars if no more than one ( 1 ) other member of the CC has posted in the CC during the last four ( 4 ) days.
-The Vice-Chair of the guild can only appoint Commissars if no more than one ( 1 ) other member of the CC has posted in the CC during the last six ( 6 ) days.
-The Vice-Chair of the guild cannot appoint Commissars if the Chair of the guild is is the other active member.
Motion 2:
Proposed rule 2
Racists, sexists and homophobes have no place in this guild.
If someone is found to have posted racist, sexist or homophobic remarks anywhere and/or support for racist, sexist or homophobic positions within the previous year, or if they are widely known for their racist or sexist views they forfeit membership in this guild.
-Those ideas are to be considered racist which imply, or make explicit, assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given race or nationality.
-Those ideas are to be considered sexist which imply, or make explicit, assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given sex or gender.
-Those ideas are to be considered homophobic which imply, or make explicit, assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given sexual orientation
-Punishment: Probation pending Permanent Banning
-They are to be banned in accordance with the constitution [2.iv.].
-Until the vote is resolved in one way or another they are considered under probation in accordance with the constitution [2.ii.].
5.i. i. Rules for the guild can only be proposed by members of the Central Committee. To make a new Rule it must be proposed in a Motion thread posted in the main forum of the guild. During the next week the membership of the guild can propose Friendly Amendments to the Motion. The member who proposed the motion is under no obligation to accept these amendments. With the close of that week the motion as it exists is voted upon by the Central Committee. The Motion becomes a Rule of the guild if it passes unanimously. The Central Committee has a period of one ( 1 ) week to discuss the motion and to vote on it, but can make no further changes to it.
2.iv. iv. Permanent banning: The member of the guild is permanently banned. Evidence of the violation of the spirit or purpose of the guild or violation of the guild rules must be provided and posted in a motion thread. After three ( 3 ) days deliberation by the guild membership the Central Committee will vote. A majority of at least two thirds ( 2/3 ) is required to pass the motion banning the member.
2.ii. Probation: The member is allowed to remain a member of the guild however any posts they make after being put on probation will be deleted without exception. Evidence of the violation of the spirit or purpose of the guild or violation of the guild rules must be provided and posted in a motion thread. After one ( 1 ) day deliberation by the guild membership the Central Committee will vote. A majority is required to pass the motion to put the member under probation. Repeated posting may be seen as disruptive behavior and grounds for further sanctions.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:17 am
I see nothing I object to!
Good job, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:34 am
You need to strictly define what racism and sexism are because ideas on the concepts come in all manner of formats. Some feminists will call a great deal of thought sexist, for example, that other types of feminists would not.
Those definitions should be references to be held as cannon for the debates on a members future in the guild, and those definitions should be the basis on which someone is banned. Not the moderators arbitrary thoughts.
Also, I don't think we should be accountable within the guild towards our actions outside of it. Maybe anywhere in Gaia or the Guilds' sanctioned vent/xat chat or something. However, the guild has no place nosing in the private business of others. Even if it is racism or sexism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:45 am
The Curse Some feminists will call a great deal of thought sexist Like me... cause they ARE. But we learn to block these things out~ /irrelevance The Curse Those definitions should be references to be held as cannon for the debates on a members future in the guild, and those definitions should be the basis on which someone is banned. Not the moderators arbitrary thoughts. Also, I don't think we should be accountable within the guild towards our actions outside of it. Maybe anywhere in Gaia or the Guilds' sanctioned vent/xat chat or something. However, the guild has no place nosing in the private business of others. Even if it is racism or sexism. The first part is true, but the second is kind of... The second part... are you saying that if someone is racist or sexist on the rest of Gaia and/or chat it shouldn't be held against them... or that it should?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:55 am
Comrade Kotka The first part is true, but the second is kind of... The second part... are you saying that if someone is racist or sexist on the rest of Gaia and/or chat it shouldn't be held against them... or that it should? I'm saying that if I made a presentation at university about sexism it should have no effect on my gaia guild. Basically, the guilds authority should not extend beyond Gaia, or the guild. No matter how detestable their remarks, or their thoughts. For all you know, it isn't the same person, or isn't what they actually think (trolling?). There is no way to fairly go about this if the guild has authority to invoke punishment for things unrelated to the guild or gaia. Which brings me onto another point, exactly to what extent are we supposed to fear our right to free speech? If I for example, made a thread on sexism, and then played devils advocate in order to explore peoples arguments (but not believing my own arguments) am I to be banned? I guess it's very important to see these definitions and how they will be applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:19 am
I think if you're overtly sexist or racist anywhere I can see it, I'm not going to want you in here, personally. (Where you = random person.)
I have no idea how I'd find out what someone did a presentation on at their uni, but if they did one arguing that women are inferior and they meant it (I have nooo idea how someone'd get away with that at uni) and I somehow found out... hell yeah, I'd want them out of my sight.
If someone is seriously arguing a racist or sexist viewpoint on Gaia, I think they should be called on that. Full stop.
I find it really hard to picture someone being 'devil's advocate' in a sexism or racism discussion without making it clear that those are not their actual beliefs (and they're only poking holes in someone else's argument). Since they're such sensitive issues, I'm having a real hard time imagining it.
If you made a 'white people are superior' thread and didn't make it clear that you didn't believe it... well, I can't even imagine that. I'd have to think you really believed it.
*wonders when I've ever advocated unlimited free speech* o.O
All this said, 'racist' and 'sexist' should be defined...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:25 am
The Curse You need to strictly define what racism and sexism are because ideas on the concepts come in all manner of formats. Some feminists will call a great deal of thought sexist, for example, that other types of feminists would not. Those definitions should be references to be held as cannon for the debates on a members future in the guild, and those definitions should be the basis on which someone is banned. Not the moderators arbitrary thoughts. Also, I don't think we should be accountable within the guild towards our actions outside of it. Maybe anywhere in Gaia or the Guilds' sanctioned vent/xat chat or something. However, the guild has no place nosing in the private business of others. Even if it is racism or sexism. 'Those ideas are to be considered racist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given race or nationality.' 'Those ideas are to be considered sexist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given sex or gender.' I would be unwilling to be more specific than that because as is the nature of these things, they defy specification, especially considering the many technically neutral words, phrases or ideas that serve as watchwords for various forms of prejudice. That said, we could make a non-exhaustive list of terms that could serve at the very least, as a baseline. Considering the nature of this guild, being definitely against racism and sexism, it would look horrible if we had a misogynist or racist in the guild but did nothing because they were all nice and good on Gaia. The idea is not to nose into people's lives, but more as a precaution against the situation outlined above. If someone were to invite another member of the guild to a forum somewhere else and was spewing racist s**t left and right there... But were unable to formally do anything, well, that would suck. And besides, it isn't as if we have the resources to stalk everyone that enters the guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:18 am
Comrade Kotka I find it really hard to picture someone being 'devil's advocate' in a sexism or racism discussion without making it clear that those are not their actual beliefs (and they're only poking holes in someone else's argument). Since they're such sensitive issues, I'm having a real hard time imagining it. If you made a 'white people are superior' thread and didn't make it clear that you didn't believe it... well, I can't even imagine that. I'd have to think you really believed it. Well playing devils advocate to push peoples' arguments is something I do almost habitually, so the idea I will lose that because of some rule here is disturbing. Also, I think you've seen my views on the status of women before. Because of the divisive nature of thought on sexism. Naturally, I don't think I'm a sexist, I just resent the idea that women and men should be treated as separate entities or as two competitive groups but basically I can only discuss gender on Gaia any more when the CC is made up of like-minded individuals. Or I'm screwed. Oh well, I stay away from those debates mostly anyway, I guess that free speech is mostly harmless if lost from me. Quote: *wonders when I've ever advocated unlimited free speech* o.O Well, I do. Which is unfortunate for me insofar as the guild is concerned given your position on free speech. It just means that I'll have to be more active and cogent when it coems to arguing against things like this. At the very least, able to bring about fairer caveats to the rules and propositions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:26 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre 'Those ideas are to be considered racist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given race or nationality.' 'Those ideas are to be considered sexist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given sex or gender.' Hrm. I suggest adding 'unless these remarks are obviously in harmless jest or, for all intents and purposes, accepted by all involved parties'. Or hell, anything vaguely to that effect that suits you. This stops someone from getting banned by making a joke like 'Oh you Aussies and your silly croc wrestling'. Quote: That said, we could make a non-exhaustive list of terms that could serve at the very least, as a baseline. I don't like the sound of that at all. An advisory paragraph about how your tone could be interpreted as prejudiced if you're not careful, maybe. People should at least be warned that someone may find sexism in their remarks. Quote: Considering the nature of this guild, being definitely against racism and sexism, it would look horrible if we had a misogynist or racist in the guild but did nothing because they were all nice and good on Gaia. I suppose it's not like you guys have ever been about acceptance, unconditional love or mutual respect right? I have no choice but to concede this despite my own feelings on the matter. Quote: The idea is not to nose into people's lives, but more as a precaution against the situation outlined above. If someone were to invite another member of the guild to a forum somewhere else and was spewing racist s**t left and right there... But were unable to formally do anything, well, that would suck. I don't agree. If someone else did that on another forum it is that forums responsibility to respond. Not yours. You can question them about it and see what their intentions were without unleashing the banhammer. Being a sexist after all, is different to espousing sexist remarks. If someone is within the rules of this guild and Gaia (which, iirc equally condemns such ideas), I don't see a problem. They may even have something constructive to offer. I've seen ****** make sensible arguments before. Hard as it is to admit. But I do understand what you're saying. I would be satisfied if you stressed that this singular rule will not set any precedents as for further grounds for banning. Quote: And besides, it isn't as if we have the resources to stalk everyone that enters the guild. Sometimes the tokens and the symbols are more powerful than the actions themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:26 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse You need to strictly define what racism and sexism are because ideas on the concepts come in all manner of formats. Some feminists will call a great deal of thought sexist, for example, that other types of feminists would not. Those definitions should be references to be held as cannon for the debates on a members future in the guild, and those definitions should be the basis on which someone is banned. Not the moderators arbitrary thoughts. Also, I don't think we should be accountable within the guild towards our actions outside of it. Maybe anywhere in Gaia or the Guilds' sanctioned vent/xat chat or something. However, the guild has no place nosing in the private business of others. Even if it is racism or sexism. 'Those ideas are to be considered racist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given race or nationality.' 'Those ideas are to be considered sexist which imply or make explicit assumptions based on the worth or ability of a given sex or gender.' I would be unwilling to be more specific than that because as is the nature of these things, they defy specification, especially considering the many technically neutral words, phrases or ideas that serve as watchwords for various forms of prejudice. That said, we could make a non-exhaustive list of terms that could serve at the very least, as a baseline. Considering the nature of this guild, being definitely against racism and sexism, it would look horrible if we had a misogynist or racist in the guild but did nothing because they were all nice and good on Gaia. The idea is not to nose into people's lives, but more as a precaution against the situation outlined above. If someone were to invite another member of the guild to a forum somewhere else and was spewing racist s**t left and right there... But were unable to formally do anything, well, that would suck. And besides, it isn't as if we have the resources to stalk everyone that enters the guild. Misandry? Where is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:57 am
I see nothing within the two rules to object too. I am fully in support of a commissariat (hint hint, nudge nudge), and I also feel that racists and sexists have no place here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:37 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miza_Radioaktiv Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:50 pm
I have no issues with the proposed rules. Nice work, comrade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:43 pm
The Curse Hrm. I suggest adding 'unless these remarks are obviously in harmless jest or, for all intents and purposes, accepted by all involved parties'. Or hell, anything vaguely to that effect that suits you. This stops someone from getting banned by making a joke like 'Oh you Aussies and your silly croc wrestling'. I expect the rules will be enforced with at least a little common sense. This common sense will go both ways, both ignoring the obvious jokes, and in coming down on the things claimed to be jokes, but not. Also, if anyone with the power wants to ban anyone, then the presence of rules isn't going to stop them. The Curse I don't like the sound of that at all. An advisory paragraph about how your tone could be interpreted as prejudiced if you're not careful, maybe. People should at least be warned that someone may find sexism in their remarks. Nah, I really think having sexist and nationalist terms listed could help. Certain 'n' anf 'c' words spring to mind. Also, I am ashamed that I didn't put this in there originally, and surprised that no one has pointed it out: Homophobic s**t needs to be dealt with... @Hero: Commissars are by their nature very limited in the time of their commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:32 pm
Why is it that it's the capitalist who so pettily tries to argue against rules within a communist guild? It's not like his opinion matters around here. I support both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
