Loose Ends and a Proposal

[Cindy C.]

Hi,

First things first . . . 

::waves to Joy and Porphyria::

A few things:

1.  Tom raised some good issues regarding how we want to deal with 
the MoM FAQ and its relationship to the "Justice" FAQ.  We should 
probably revisit those so they don't get lost in the shuffle.

2.  We might want to clarify who will be working on what FAQ.  We 
have a database for that, but some of the houses do not have 
prefects, and some people have suggested they wish to work on FAQs 
that are not in the database.

3.  We took a poll to determine which current and new FAQs would be 
our priorities.  Now that OoP has been released, perhaps folks 
should consider whether they wish to change their votes.

4.  On cataloguing and beefing up the enchilada . . . I don't object 
to this but can't personally commit to help, although I'm always 
willing to benefit from the hard work of others.  :-D  How would we 
get this project rolling?

5.  I've rather lost track of the implementation of our effort to 
deputize the list to find good posts, which is fine.  Will the 
notice to the list be placed as a regularly occurring event on the 
calendar of the main list, like the chat reminders?

*****************

I've given some thought to some of the unfortunate events of this 
week, and I'd like to put something on the table.

I think that, given recent history in our community, civility 
problems and other interpersonal issues are likely to come up from 
time to time.  This is unfortunate and unpleasant, and I consider it 
a real threat to our group.  This is supposed to be fun.  People 
will leave if things become unpleasant.

Here's an idea, then.

I think we should designate "Aurors" in this group.  The "Aurors" 
would have the ability to address instances of rudeness on this list 
(by sending off-list communications and warnings, etc.).  
The "Aurors" would also have the power to address and correct issues 
such as abuse of moderator powers, for instance.  The "Aurors" could 
place a member on moderated status if necessary to control rudeness, 
for instance, or could adjust someone's moderator powers to address 
abuse.

I imagine the "Auror" system would work something like this.

FAQ member posts a personal attack on another member.  The Aurors 
would contact the member off-list and advise that the post was 
inappropriate and why.  Hopefully, the tone of the communication 
would reflect the severity of the violation.  Depending on the 
severity of the violation, the Aurors could also contact 
the "victim" of the rudeness and simply advise that the rudeness had 
been addressed.  

In addition, FAQ members who would like an instance of rudeness 
addressed could write to the Aurors and ask that action be taken.  
It would up to the Aurors to decide how to handle the matter.

The Aurors would not, however, have any authority to address 
instances of off-list rudeness.  If two members wish to have a 
smackdown off-list, it does not affect this group as directly as on-
list rudeness.  In addition, if a member wishes to take matters into 
her own hands and address rudeness off-list, that is also fine.

I understand the argument that anyone with a grievance should 
approach the offender off-list.  I do think that we must realize 
that we have many different personality types here, and some people 
abhor conflict.  Also, having the victim contact the perp off-list 
is all well and good, but there is nothing to prevent the perp from 
doing the same thing again and again and again, to the detriment of 
our community.  Prevention is very important, IMHO.

I understand the concern of some of our members that they don't wish 
to be policed.  Frankly, I don't want to be policed either.  But I 
think the well-being of this group is in jeopardy if we don't do 
something about this.  I am willing to behave myself and take the 
consequences when I do not.  After all, we don't allow the main list 
to police itself regarding issues of civility.  We send howlers, and 
we place repeat offenders on moderated status.

I would recommend that we choose 2-3 people to serve as Aurors.  I 
further recommend that no current or former MEG could serve as Auror 
because we are Modgate Survivors.  Our judgment may be clouded by 
our memory of those painful events, and we may be biased as a 
result.  Fortunately, we have several strong and fair non-MEG 
members who could serve, if they were willing.  

I think the mere fact that we put such a system in place would be 
such an effective deterrent to rudeness and abuse of moderator 
powers that the Aurors would find themselves to have very little to 
do.

And we would all win.

Cindy