Rule #12 - Debate

Upon different perspectives, the current situation in the forums could be considered as a drama. I did take the effort on talking to some members who have an idea about the past.

This thread in particular, I agree, is not a drama.

And I'll be more cautious about you messing with me :P

Edit - I guess our friendly argument has been settled. So I shouldn't interrupt the debate anymore.

You have a good day O(^-^)O

"Sorry Colm...I missed your post...what problem was solved? I have a definate issue with a previous judge accepting a second round and I've given good reason why.. and...it hasn't been solved."

Hey Hellon. Circumstances are different now. We have all the mods involved with the weekly contest, instead of just one. We have 5 people judging every week, no matter what. There is no judging forum because judges are encouraged to remain anonymous to one another, and to the site. Moderators keep a close eye on everything that happens. We see comments and votes, and who they belong to, before anyone else does. If something seems fishy, we can handle it, and quickly.

All that said, I don't understand what you're worried about.
This person has been humiliated enough, I doubt they would attempt to repeat the past even if they could. I, for one, would 100% back their being a judge in the future. If it doesn't work out, we'll swap them.

WARNING: If this judge thread is ever shared again on the main forums, or anywhere that the mods find out about, I will personally penalize the sharer on grounds of hacking.

----

On a nicer note: This thread looks great. I'm happy to see the different opinions being expressed thoughtfully. Michael, the humor is welcome :)
I hope more people pitch in.

I'm open to persuasion from both sides, but my personal, non-modly opinion is that the "no past" rule oughtn't be necessary. Rather than focusing on the "pastness" of it, perhaps we should treat it like any other offense: If it is a personal insult or designed to provoke an individual, mods will edit or delete it.

Therefore, if you are talking about a past instance (like Jane did above) it would be fine because she's was not targeting an individual. But if I were to bring up a specific past instance where I thought Jane was being evil, and I say so, I would be moderated. Not because it was something in the past, but because it was a personal attack.

Really, though. Do we need to have a rule saying that the past can't be spoken of? I think that might be going too far. There are too many differing opinions on what we mean by "for educational purposes," or "to stir up drama." I see potential for a lot of confusion there.

From the other side of things, though, I would want people to be able to accept issues that have come, AND been dealt with. Should it be a rule? Maybe not. But it's something that everyone should be able to do. There wouldn't have been even a potential need for that rule if people knew when to let things go. Maybe that's not something that we can legislate, but I think it's something we can work towards.

What if we edited the rule and worded it the lovely Sibs just done to clarify any confusion.

I like that..but would we really need it stated as a 'rule' then? It's still breaking other rules already in force (and it being in the list of rules may bring someone up saying why the specifics on the past.. and oh man discussion after discussion pops up lol)

Yep, it's a pretty wishy-washy rule and it should go. The harassment rule should cover the issue.

Sometimes it is hard to bring up past events without referring to people who were involved. I suppose they could remain unnamed, though it would still be pretty obvious. However, if they are no longer active, I don't see how it hurts. They're not here to represent themselves? Big deal. Look at any history book. Look at poor JPM. I never knew him, but many people speak crap about him or glorify him to this day. And they have a right to do so.

Posts that could potentially trigger "Drama" shouldn't be deleted. Mods are not fortune-tellers. Let the Drama unfold, and if it gets ugly, THEN step in. It doesn't always have to get ugly. Have a bittle faith. And a ton of patience.

I think so. There are many talented individuals that are able to bring up the past in a nice way while intentionally provoking the other person.

It would serve as a safety net for members and mods.

I agree that we should wait for the drama to come to a boil before moderating. We might have special powers, but fortune-telling isn't one of them.

The no past rule was relevant about a year ago, although I didn't mind being heckled at every turn because there was nothing for me to hide, it was pretty exhausting. Not just for me. For everyone.
Perhaps it should've fallen under "harassment."
I'm fine with that. The no past rule does get tricky. It was a good trial run, maybe time to discard it and stick with the no bullying/harassing/insulting rule. It covers pretty much everything that needs covering.

I am wanting to follow the advice of a lonely soul and let the law makers make the 'rules for wisemen and fools' I do quote Bob Dylan and other suspected aspies because I believed I am wired like them.

A well known mod ended a Debate by locking a drug thread that is still in the archives

Anyway the mod gave a fair warning to the sugar coated one and the plain
one . I wonder if the mods or members have ever seen me as sugar coated?

Sorry to the new members that do not understand it no more than abracadabra's mention of the infamous JPM whose career on this site I followed from the time his screen name was Done with this stupid site lol

ps I wrote a rap about this rule and will post it on this site as soon as I learn to copy and paste

http://alpoetry.com/poem/9163859-Where the Past is Extinctby-poetrymd

Just to set the record straight...I never hacked into the old judges forum. A member posted the link to it on the main boards. Heck...I wasn't even a member on the site at the time but....you don't have to be to read the main board posts.

This person has been humiliated enough, I doubt they would attempt to repeat the past even if they could. I, for one, would 100% back their being a judge in the future. If it doesn't work out, we'll swap them.

^^^^

Humiliated them? In what way? I haven't mentioned anyone by name here. Embarrassed them perhaps but...as Nor said on the other thread we all must take responsibility for our own actions and...face the consequences.

Yes, but years later...? What's done is done. The judging system is no where near what it used to be and it is extremely monitored by the mods now. We need to get over it.

I was actually responding to Jane but....whatever. As you say..it happened a while again and...when I read the link I wasn't a member so when I returned I was prepared to leave it in the past but now that this person has accepted the nominations for another stint on the judging panel then....yes I do have a problem. I put this out in the open because I feel the members have the right to know.

The problem we're faced with is situational rule making: # 12, is so specific it must have been aimed at issues that arose close to the time of its inception.

The Site Rules & Guidelines # 1 & # 8 cover the issues dealt with in # 12.
"1. The first and most important rule is to be respectful to all members. Being disrespectful to other members will not be tolerated."
"8. Harassment will not be tolerated."

In fact, # 12 is actually more of a subset of these other rules and breaks no new ground.

Any society will burden itself with rules perceived to be needed to spell out minute prohibitions. A wise society will occasionally step back & clean up the roster of restrictions to get rid of the dead-weight once the situation has passed.

Regarding Hellon's posts, I understand the post was designed to alert members to a situation that should not be allowed to be repeated. My observations are that the message would have been better if it were timely made, instead of when the selection process is over, and that it would have been most effective spelled out clear & simply in a PM to a mod.

The reason for my lateness was because I was overseas for the first 3 weeks of November and had limited access to a computer. Jane made the first post on 10th November and I made a post on the same day....there is nothing else from me on that thread. I received a pm from someone saying I should accept my nomination and become a judge...that's when I looked in the thread again and saw this other member's name.

Why do I feel I have to continually defend myself here when I'm not the guilty party? This is a very seriously issue which I thought should be made public knowledge.

Is a very serious issue, or was a very serious issue? I just don't see how it's relevant now. How could what happened years ago, when things were sooo different, possibly be repeated with the current system? That's what I wanna know.

Nothing against you, Hellon, you know I like ya.

You are all very good at answering questions with more questions and avoiding my questions so...how did I humiliate this member? Why do I constantly have to defend myself here?

I will answer yours though....it's relevant because this member could possibly be a judge right now and I think that anyone who betrays a trust when they have been given responsibility may be prone to doing it again and...the mods have a responsibility (in my opinion) not to put someone like that in a position to do it.

* you edited you post before I got my answer out.

Putting so much trust into judges is what this matter relays on

I really do see where hellion is coming from, simply, she doesn't trust that particular person and she has her reasons which are abosultely legit, being a judge and choosing to ignore a poem can be very dangerous to the well being of the website as a whole,
the thing that i'd like to see as a member is a solution to this manner, I mean, sure, we trust mods, all of you alike, but honestly what i'm seeing from reading the posts above is what should/could have been, and while I agree that this matter in particular would have best been handled via PM, it hasn't, but that doesn't mean it should end there, honestly speaking, I like the idea that Colm has mentioned, where you declare the acceptance of a judging term via Pm and not make it public to everyone to see in the member forums,
the main purpose of the new judging system is that the judges have no clue who each other are, but in the term I served, I really knew who the other judges were, and i'm willing to bet that almost everyone else on the website who kept an eye on the forums did knew as well, This judging term isn't that much different either, The list narrowed down the nominations to @ most 9 people, so it's almost the same as the one before, the way i see it, There are still some flaws in the way the weekly competion is being handled, no matter how non-bias people are trying to be...

I don't like the rule and on many occasions have seen it used for certain people but not for others. When that happened I brought it up but always managed to get shut down saying, "Oh it's harmless". My problem with that specific rule is in some cases the mods are in conflict. Take Jane and I for example, our past is no big secret to regular members. The last time the 'past' was brought up I did it in a way to express a point on a thread I didn't even MENTION the said past and I was jumped on. I grazed the topic regarding rules, enforcement and members following them. I got a warning and stating that I was harassing her. Which harassment honestly needs to be researched before throwing that WORD around BTW! Yes a few other times the past was mentioned but the last time I did it a few months had passed and I was just stating a fact not taking a dig, the other times it was mentioned it was truthful. A few days later something similar was mentioned about another member, but it was let go. I think because of the 'personal' interest I got a good talking to because of who I was speaking to/about. WHich I felt was just stupid. Actually it was about 'past mods' and the time frame these 'said' mods helped run the site. Which any smart person would have pointed out Al, Bob and myself. Now hopefully I won't get in shit for merely mentioning a past problem of mentioning the past.

The confusion comes in when rules are only enforced for some but not for others. If there is a NO past rule then there's a NO past rule.

That is my mere opinion on the matter.

In regards to Hellon's post. Was this said judge from a few cycles ago or were they from say a year ago? To me that would make a difference. If it was recent I'd say they probably shouldn't judge. If it was from a long time ago I say give him/her a chance, we all grow and mature as the years go on.

However I do strongly agree with this, and always will. "I think that anyone who betrays a trust when they have been given responsibility may be prone to doing it again and...the mods have a responsibility (in my opinion) not to put someone like that in a position to do it." So I guess I kind of do see where your coming from even if it was from a long time ago. The question is have you seen this said member mature in the way they handle themselves on the forum? To me that's a pretty good indication of if things will be different this go around.

_______________________
How picking judges are done:
If I could make a suggestion that is very close to Colms idea.

I know this may create more work for the mods, so it's understandable if this suggestion isn't considered. However, I think nominations and acceptances should be done via PM. The nominations to me should be almost counted as votes. Then the said parties are notified with a PM stating.

"You have been nominated to be a Contest Judge. We look forward to hearing back from you. The deadline for acceptances or declines (non answers will be counted as a decline) is by x date."

Hellon, I don't think you need to defend yourself, no one but you is saying you are humiliating anyone. That is because you (thankfully) have not named the person publically. Your message has been received and thank you.

This discussion is not about you. It is about whether the rule should be removed. I believe it should be, since it is redundant to rules 1 & 8.

You have raised issues about the nomination process which issues have been developed, especially by Colm & Amanda.

I like the idea of private acceptance - best by PMing the mod account. Not sure that private nominations would give this very type of issue a chance to be made known to mods. Unless people see who are being considered, persons with knowledge would not have the oportunity to step up.

How about this: private nominations, a single locked thread to post a final list of nominations, no tally of votes, and not just those who have accepted; no comments on the thread since it's locked, but PMs to the mod account or to a single mod if it is felt necessary, about reservations and likewise, PMs to accept.

Jeez...I really am going to give up but not before I ask one final question...you ask us, no actually you invite us to put our concerns on the table and when we do...nothing happens...Your rug is looking mighty big right now with all the shit that's under it!

no one but you is saying you are humiliating anyone. That is because you (
^^^

Excuse me? Jane said I was 'humiliating'a member I simply asked why?

What is the difference between humiliate and embarrass? I think you by posting all of this repeatedly, not letting it go, especially when the judging system is so obviously different. You cannot vote for yourself, the site will not allow it.

There have been judges put into place that I don't trust and for good reason, so I voice my opinion to a mod and that gives them a reason to perhaps watch one person s little not closely just to be sure. There is always going to be someone someone else doesn't trust.

I really like Amandas idea, making nominations unknown. I'm not sure why a list even needs to be shown, we have s general idea of who is nominated anyway (active members).

Indeed what is the difference between a discussion, debate, civil dispute, and an argument. It seems at the very least rule number twelve that was made in the past to a degree to condemn discussion of the past, and has become an oxymoron like "civil dispute"
holy terror, chemical balance, and many others,
has now become a Discussion about suggesions which by chance was the title I started at the suggestion of a former mod, is in need of modification!

I enjoyed a three day vacation in a penalty box but never felt harassed by mod or member because I am not tormented by what I know but what I think I know!

Oh well,

Since I'm new to this site, I'm not exactly sure what has happen in the past in relation with nominations, judges, and etc. But base on this thread I have find that its helpful to know a few things that happened before without actually breaking rule 1 and 8, because now we can analyze the issues that are bothering some members and come up with solutions to make a better atmosphere in this site thus I find rule # 12 to be of no use.

I think the list idea has potential. However you would possibly still run into knowing at least the list of people nominated then narrowing it down. If we truly want the judges unknown I don't know if lists should be shown.

But I certainly like the ideas being proposed to help with this problem.

Also do we have a mod monitoring the judges to ensure they are voting, commenting and being relatively fair? Take for example Judge 1 is friends with Judge 2. Judge 2 votes for Judge 1's poem. This happens more then once. How is this situation handled? Because it'd be mildly noticeable with the friendship and the votes how odd it would be. Unless the poem was truly win worthy.

While I wouldn't want to take away from the judges but I would think that perhaps judges for the 3 months can only have 1 winning poem for the cycle. I know it seems unfair but when I was a mod we weren't able to be nominated either (I don't think we were. Please feel free to correct me). I don't know if it's entirely fair to allow judges to win more then once. Especially since it's kind of obvious to narrow it down as Britt pointed out. Even more so if they're friends. You know they have to be talking about it. If anything to just discuss the weeks poems.

In any case I think that the judges should be known to eachother (other judges of that cycle). To me it makes people more accountable for what they do and who they choose. This way other judges can also report any kind of noticeable trend, if another judges actions seem fishy.

I don't like taking any one off the table, just because it doesn't seem all that fair. When I was a mod we always had judges that weren't really friends (openly anyway) and I picked people that were in different clubs. One time we ended up having two in the same club, but that was a replacement issue and they didn't vote for their club members, anyway (I watched that like a hawk lol). I think if judges are still being chosen that way, especially from different clubs and circles, it shouldn't be much of an issue.. I would hope not anyway.

In defense o f my dear friend Hellon's observation that members of clubs win more than non club members is accurate, but does not necessarily impy judges being partial it may mean that club mebers are generally more in tune with what site members are in terms of what is wanted on the front page

I told britt I wanted to step down because I always new who wrote the poem I was to judge and could not be sure that club loyalty did not influence me

As far as the contest is concerned, we all have different taste in poetry and what we like or dislike.

There are some judges in the past and present that will be able to tell right off whether or not a poem speaks to them and whether or not they would consider it for weekly nomination.

How many times have you all read poems looking to nominate for the weekly contest and knew as soon as you started reading that one poem that it was not going to get one of your three votes?

It is the same with all judges across the board.

I do not know much about the time that Bob ran the contest (or shall I say everything that took place) but I do know that he done the best he could to keep it fair with what we were given at the time and the knowledge we had as a whole.

I do not think that there was any planned intent to make anyone feel that they were being treated unfairly. Certain rules were put in place in thoughts that it would level the playing field.

The rules are different now for our judges and the judges are closely monitored. If there is a problem in the future then we will address it at that time.

But to hold it against some one for not finding a personal intrest to continue reading a poem that they did not like or to even hold anything against our judges from several years ago when the rules were different is not going to do anything but make everyone angry, bitter, and resentful.

Anger is a strange thing... When a person holds on to anger they are only killing themselves. It would be as though saying, because I am angry at so and so I am going to drink this bottle of poison to hurt or inflict harm upon them.

The end results are the same... Whether it is holding a grudge or drinking the poisin. I am the one who gets hurt.. not the other party.

Yep, very true Mike. You did. There was another couple judges who stepped down as well because they feel they could not judge without bias. They haven't been judges again that I know of.

What Sherry Lynn said at the end is so true

Many of us have a great deal of anger in us and it is my opinion anger is a feeling . Most of the experts agree that intense feelings are not right or wrong. good or bad . People that are in rehap for consuming this or any other poison are told it is what we do with feelings that makes the difference. I some times imagine that one of my dissabilities gives me the ability to seperate my emotions from my weak intellect at times to balance my heart, mind, and soul.

I'm well aware that there are some poems were people simply don't find a connection or aren't too fond to them, but Its all about learning and improving our writing thus if someone aside from the judges reads the nominations list and finds a poem that its nominated and they think that there is a scope for improvement then don't hesitate to comment but always do so in a respectful way.

That will show that not only the judges are reading them but also the members. So when the weekly contest is over then everyone who's poems were nominated will know what needs to improve and if by any chance their poem wasn't a winner then they will have a feedback, perhaps not by the judges, but by the members and base on that they will have an idea of what needs to be improve to make their poems more appealing and relatable to the majority.

Let's recap, and tell me me if you disagree:
there appears to be a consensus that rule 12 is unneeded & should be deleted;
bringing up past issues for the purpose of harassment is punishable under rules 1 & 8;
historical issues can be important to share if not used to humiliate someone;
arguments and drama are not necessarily bad but need to be checked if they rise to the level of personal attacks;
judges should be nominated, contacted & accept or decline by PM to the mod account;
concerns about persons serving in any position should be shared via PM either to the mod account or to an individual mod.

I agree with all of the above Larry.

Looks good to me, Larry. Do we need to allow more time for people to weigh in?

-Sibyllene

I think so, given time zone differences.

I also agree

I too completely agree with the conclusions Larry has compiled for us. We should wait a few more days for people to chime in. I can think of several members who will have something to say.

I see I've missed a lot. Amanda, I'm sorry you feel you were unfairly edited when bringing up 'stuff' revolving around me. If it makes you feel better, I was never put in a position to edit/delete your posts myself because it's obvious how unfair that would've been. It probably doesn't make you feel better.

Hellon, in response to, "Excuse me? Jane said I was 'humiliating'a member I simply asked why?"

No, I didn't say that.
This member has been humiliated because while minding their own business, something they did years ago - which is subjectively bad - is being drug out on the boards for all to see, whether they like it or not. I've contributed to the embarrassment simply by helping the conversation to continue.
Hope that clears things up...

This discussion is not about you
^^^^^

No Larry it's not and...it never was but from reading some of the post some members may think it is so, I'll try to clarify this now. This has nothing to do with what a previous judge said about one of my poems that had been nominated. I understand that we all have different tastes and...we can't all win on the day. This is about one judge suggesting to another that they vote on the other's poem. Yes, it was in the past and would have stayed there if this member hadn't been nominated again.

Further up this page a member who had just come off a three month stint as a judge has admitted knowing who the other judges were before they reveiled themselves so...can you honestly 100% guarantee that this does not still have the potential to happen again? That's what my concerns are about and I do wish more focus was put on that earlier on rather than focusing on whether to abolish Rule 12.

I do like the suggestions made by Colm and Amanda.

Yes, there is potential for judges to find out who other judges are. There's no judging forum, however, and since hacking PM's has been made impossible, the only way for judges to discover each other is by guesswork or revealing themselves. It is strongly encouraged that judges do not reveal themselves, and if we find proof that they have, I suggest removing them from the panel.
We do have access to votes/comments and who they're from the day before they're sent to the main forum, and before poems make the front page. We are able to see if there's any fishiness, and yes, we do look out for fishiness.

Lastly, we do our best to limit the amount of friendships in the judge panel. We try to pull together a diverse group with varying tastes. Hopefully this will be easier with shorter terms and more participation. Making the nominees anonymous would be a great help.

May I make a suggestion of my own. In future...if for some reason a judge has no time to leave a comment explaining why the think a poem is worthy of the front page, that they are not allowed to vote that week either and a backup judge steps in for them?

One of the winners this week for example got a 10 score with no comment. As it's the highest score one can give I think it's only fair that a comment also be left.

I think that has been implemented these couple of weeks
I assure you the mods do the perfect job reminding the judges of when to vote and when to send in their comments.